---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, March 23, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 53

                            Headlines

200 CANDY: Faces Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
20E FRAME INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Encarnacion Alleges
2U INC: Bid to Dismiss Maryland Consolidated Suit Pending
A-1 COLLECTION: Suit Seeks to Continue Class Status Bid Deadline
ACCELLION INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Price Suit Says

ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Toss Fulcher Consolidated Suit Pending
ACSC MANAGEMENT: Faces Aguilar Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
ADT INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Preddy Class Suit Granted
ADT INC: Court Narrows Claims in Doty Class Action
ADT INC: Discovery Ongoing in Archer Suit vs Defender Holdings

ADT INC: Settlement in Shareholders' Suit Granted Final Approval
ADT INC: Settlement in Villegas Suit Gets Preliminary Approval
AEP TEXAS: Parent Continues to Defend Shareholder's Suit in Ohio
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Faces Lopez Securities Suit Over 36.4% Shares Drop
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of April 27 Deadline

AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Karth Awaits Decision in Class Suit Appeal
ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Abante Rooter, Naiman Suit
ALCOA CORPORATION: Lavoie Putative Class Suit v. Unit Underway
ALLINA HEALTH: Skaro Sues Over Failure to Provide Health Records
AMARIN CORP: Bid to Nix Consolidated Class Suit in NJ Pending

AMERICAN FINANCE: Bid to Amend NY Consolidated Class Suit Pending
AMERICAN FINANCE: Dismissal of St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Upheld
AMERICAN INT'L: Plaintiff's Renewed Class Certification Bid Tossed
AMERICOLD REALTY: Sheffler Sues Over Failure Secure & Safeguard PII
AMPHP INC: Nisbett Suit Seeks Full Website Access for Blind People

ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Angiano Suit Removed from State Ct. to C.D. Calif.
AQUA METALS: Court Junks California Securities Class Action
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Reminds of April 20 Deadline
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Lewakowski Sues Over Stock Price Drop
AUSTRALIA: Lawyers Need to Determine Strain in COVID-19 Lawsuit

BACTOLAC PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Narrows Claims in Copley Class Suit
BAHN THAI: Faces Arneson Employment Suit in California State Court
BAKER HUGHES: Continues to Defend Consolidated Shareholder Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Unlawfully Collects ACH Transfer Fees, Bruin Says
BANK OF AMERICA: Wells, BofA & Capital Dismissed From Anderjaska

BARBIZON SCHOOL: Deprives All Wages Earned by Directors, Suit Says
BBVA USA: Chattopadhyay Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit
BBVA USA: Continues to Defend Ferguson Class Action in Alabama
BBVA USA: St. Lucie Firefighters Pension Trust Suit Ongoing
BBVA USA: Zamora-Orduna Realty Suit Over PPP Loan Underway

BELLUS HEALTH: Faces Cachia Suit Over 75% Drop in Stock Price
BEST BUY: Portillo Sues Over Harassment, Wrongful Termination
BEYOND MEAT: Massaro TCPA Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in Facebook
BIT DIGITAL: Nitcheu Sues Over Decline in Stock Market Price
BLUEBIRD BIO: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of April 13 Deadline

BLUEBIRD BIO: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 13 Deadline
BOOK VIP: Andrews et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Mesh Implants
BQ OPERATIONS: Brown Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
BROKER SOLUTIONS: Faces Vargas Suit Over Unlawful Credit Reporting

BUCK KNIVES: Houriani Sues Over Deceptive Sales of Hunting Knives
BUNGIE INC: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Destiny 2 Online Game
CAMPBELL SOUP: Baby Food Contains Toxic Metals, Chase Alleges
CAMPBELL SOUP: Baccari Sues Over Mislabeled Baby Food Products
CANDID CARE: Morgan Employment Suit Goes to N.D. California

CAPITAL ONE: Securities Suit Over Cybersecurity Incident Underway
CAPITAL ONE: Still Defends Consumer Suits on Cybersecurity Incident
CAREMARK LLC: Sheth Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT for Reps
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA: Final Approval of $375K Deal in Urena Endorsed
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Papi LLC Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage

CIRCUIT CITY: Judge Applies Transportation Worker Definition
CLASSIC OF NY: Naranjo Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
CLOVER HEALTH: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
COLUMBIA SUSSEX: O'Coyle Seeks to Recover OT & Minimum Wages
COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: FLSA Class Action Pending in Nebraska

COMMUNITY ENFORCEMENT: Underpays Security Guards, Carrillo Claims
CUDAHY PLACE: Harwell-Payne FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. to E.D. Wis.
DIGNITY HEALTH: Certification of Patient Care Employee Class Sought
DIRECTV: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses TCPA Class Action Suit
DOLGENCORP LLC: Violates Civil Rights Act, Jackson Suit Says

EAST END: Morales Seeks Unpaid OT Premium Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
EDISON INT'L: Bellwether Jury Trial Set for July 19
EDR ASSETS: Class in Hess Suit Certified; Newman Named Lead Counsel
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Faces Kincaid Employment Suit in California
EHANG HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline

ELECTROLUX HOME: Claims in Rice's Third Amended Complaint Narrowed
ENDEAVOR AIR: Faces Levy Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
EPIC LANDSCAPE: Albelo Seeks to Certify Landscape Laborer Class
EPIC LANDSCAPE: Seeks to Decertify Conditionally Certified Class
EQUIFAX INC: Consumer Class Suits in Georgia State Court Stayed

EQUIFAX INC: Settlement in Data Security Breach Suit Under Appeal
EVICT-A-BUG TERMINATE: Horowitz Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
EXP REALTY: Faces Kaznecki Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
FAIRVIEW HEALTH: Dolan Sues Over Failure to Provide Health Records
FANDUEL GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Real-Time Scoring Data Delay

FEDERAL SIGNAL: Discovery Ongoing in Hearing Loss Litigation
FIRST MERCURY: Refused to Honor Insurance Policy, Zeco Suit Says
FLORISSANT, MO: April 12 Response Date to Class Cert. Bid Sought
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dockery Says
FUBOTV INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of April 19 Deadline

FUYAO GLASS: Walker BIPA Class Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
GARDAWORLD CASHLINK: Kalb BIPA Class Suit Goes to C.D. Illinois
GEICO CASUALTY: Class Status Bid Filing Due September 1
GENERAL MOTORS: Cars Have Generation IV Engine Defects, Suit Says
GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Alleges

GLOBE LIFE: Berry Suit vs. American Income Life Insurance Stayed
GLOBE LIFE: Settlement in Joh & Hamilton Suits Granted Final OK
GREAT NECK : Onofre, et al. Seek to Recover Proper OT Wages
GROUP HEALTH: Fails to Provide Patients' Health Records, Says Suit
GROUPE SEB: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Jaquez Suit Claims

GROUPON INC: Bid to Nix Securities Class Suit in Illinois Pending
GRUBHUB INC: Sznitko Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. California
HAAS DOOR: Vogelsong Sues Over Failure to Pay OT & Retaliation
HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Foods Contain Heavy Metals, Galloway Alleges
HAITI: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Celestin Suit Over Price-Fixing

HARMONY GOLD: First Seven Silicosis Claims Paid to Miners
HIMS INC: Faces Vaccaro Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
HOME DEPOT: Sandoval Labor Suit Moved From C.D. to S.D. California
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Marbury Fraud Suit in C.D. California
IBM MEDICAL: Fails to Comply SCCAP Terms, K.B. ERISA Suit Says

INFINITY Q: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 27 Deadline
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 2 Deadline
JIANPU TECH: Guttentag Slams Share Price Drop
JOHN MULVANEY: Must File Opposition to Class Cert. Bid by Oct. 19
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarettes to Youth, School District Claims

JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
KASAI NORTH: Underpays Production Associates, Dupree Suit Claims
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Pays Settlement Amount in Indirect Buyers Suit
KF OFFICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges
KING'S HAWAIIAN: Thompson Coburn Attorneys Discuss Class Action

KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Hobbs Seek Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
LA JOLLA GROUP: Denial of Wilson's Class Cert. Bid Partly Upheld
LEO'S BAGELS: Salas Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
LIBERTY MUTUAL: H Lodge Sues Over Refusal to Honor Insurance Policy
LIBERTY MUTUAL: North Pacific Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage

LOUISIANA: La. App. Flips Judgment Certifying Class in Allen Suit
LOWE'S HOME: Merhi Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. California
LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Court OK of Investor Class Settlement
LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Houser et al. Appeal Dismissal of Class Suit
MAGELLAN HEALTH: Anderson Sues Over Proposed Merger With Centene

MARIN AIRPORTER: Removes Bland Suit to N.D. California
MARK E. COCCHI: Swain Sues Over Wrongful Termination, Unpaid Wages
MCLANE/SUNEAST INC: Castaneda Labor Class Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
MERCK & CO: Appeal in Rotavirus Vaccines Suit Pending
MERCK & CO: Bravecto Related Putative Class Suit Underway

MERCK & CO: Campbell Sues Over Zostavax Vaccine's Adverse Effects
MERCK & CO: Zetia Related Consolidated Putative Class Suit Ongoing
MERCK & CO: Zostavax Causes Viral Infection, Pouretezadi Claims
MICHIGAN DOC: Tippins Seeks Class Action Certification
MIDWESTERN PET FOODS: Marshall Sues Over Contaminated Pet Food

MLB ADVANCED: Faces Lee TCPA Suit in New York
MLB ADVANCED: Faces Lee TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Ads
MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: N.Y. Judge Tosses Securities Class Action
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of April 30 Deadline
MONEYLION INC: Maurice Wutscher Attprney Discusses Court Ruling

MULTIPLAN CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 23 Deadline
NEW YORK: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Roberson Suit
NEW YORK: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Roberson
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Discovery Ongoing in PERS Mississippi Suit
NIKOLA CORP: UCL Violations-Related Suits Underway

NISSAN NORTH: Cars Have Defective Transmission Systems, Suit Says
NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Holden FSCA Class Suit Goes to M.D. Florida
OHIO SECURITY: Zedan Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage
OLD NAVY: Nunez Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Retail Shop Employees
ORAMED PHARMA: Andrews & Springer Investigates Securities Claims

ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Faces Cota Civil Rights Class Suit
PAVEL PARTITION: Ocampo Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Installers
PERDUE FARMS: Dismissal of Jien's Second Amended Complaint Denied
PERSPECTA INC: Faces Wilson Suit Over Proposed Deal With Veritas
PORSCHE CARS: Faces Turner Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania

PRICE CHOPPER: Yogurt Contains Synthetic Vanillin Flavor, Suit Says
QUALCOMM INC: Faces Consumer Class Action Over Chipset Charges
QUICKEN LOANS: 4th Circuit Affirms Class Certification in Alig Suit
RAWLINGS SPORTING: Class Suit Not Barred by Antitrust Exclusions
RBC GLOBAL: Bennett Jones Attorneys Discuss Class Action

REALTYSHARES INC: Faces Raudonis Suit Over Securities Offering
RECOVERY MANAGEMENT: Class Status Bid Filing Due Oct. 1
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
RESIDEO TECH: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
RHODE ISLAND: Has Until April 16 to Reply to Class Status Bid

ROWING BLAZERS: Martinez Seeks Full Website Access for Blind People
RPS HOLDINGS: James Seeks to Certify Collective Action
SAINT LUKE'S HEALTH: April 26 Extension to File Reply Brief OK'd
SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS: Faces Class Action Over Robotexts in S.D.N.Y.
SEALAND CONTRACTORS: Reply to Class Status Bid Extended to March 29

SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: D'Arcy Sues Over Share Price Drop
SHALLU CONSTRUCTION: Workers Sue Over Unpaid Wages,  Harassment
SLENDERTONE DISTRIBUTION: Final Approval of Class Settlement OK'd
SOLVAY SPECIALTY: Punitive Damages Claim in Severa Suit Dismissed
SONY INTERACTIVE: To Halt Movie, TV Rentals on Playstation Store

SPRINGS WINDOW: Poland FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. Tenn. to W.D. Wis.
ST. LOUIS, MO: Dixon et al., Seek to Amend Class Definition
STATE FARM: Cranfield Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Policyholders
STATE FARM: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Tufano Class Suit
SUN-MAID GROWERS: Faces FLSA Class Action Suit in California

SUNRUN INC: Consolidated Suit vs. Vivint Solar Underway
SUNRUN INC: Dekker Suit Against Vivint Solar Ongoing
SUNRUN INC: May 6 Final Approval Hearing on Loftus Settlement
T-MOBILE USA: Goldstein FSCA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
T-MOBILE USA: Grant FCRA Class Suit Removed to C.D. California

TARONIS TECHNOLOGIES: Class Status Granted in Zhu Securities Suit
TD BANK: Faces Nelipa EFTA Suit Over Unauthorized Transactions
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Certification OK'd in Securities Case
TIKTOK INC: Judge Rejects $92MM Class Action Settlement
TRADEWEB MARKETS: Bid to Junk Treasuries Securities Suits Pending

TRANSUNION LLC: SCOTUS Expected to Address Art. III Standing Issue
TRUST FOR ADVISED: Yang Sues Over Alpha Fund's Market Value Drop
UNIFUND CCR: Court Dismisses Valentine FDCPA Suit Without Prejudice
UNITED PARCEL: Baker Sues Over Unpaid Short-Term Military Leave
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: Faces Class Action Over Tuition Fee Refunds

UTGR INC: Final OK of Conditionally Certified Class Sought
VELODYNE LIDAR: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
VELODYNE LIDAR: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
VELODYNE LIDAR: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
VENTUREBEAT INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Jaquez Claims

VISION INTEGRATED: Zydek Seeks Unpaid CSRs' Overtime Wages
VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Karp Putative Class Suit
VULCAN MATERIALS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bailey Alleges
WAL-MART INC: Seeks April 12 Deadline to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
WECO INC: Looney Seeks OT Pay for Technicians Under FLSA & IMWL

WESTCO CHEMICALS: Pension Plan Participants Get Class Certification
WHITE CASTLE: Hunter NYCHRL Class Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
WHOLESALE COINS: Blind Can't Access Website, Sanchez Suit Alleges
WYNDHAM VACATION: Garibay Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to D. Nevada
XD PLASTICS: Squitieri & Fearon LLP Files Securities Class Action

ZYNGA INC: Faces Owens Suit Over Online "Social Slots" Games

                            *********

200 CANDY: Faces Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
ANASTASIA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 200 CANDY CORP. (D/B/A EDIBLE
ARRANGEMENTS) and BAQAR SHAH, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02335
(S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure
to pay spread-of-hours premium, and failure to maintain accurate
records.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as fruit packer in New
York.

200 Candy Corp., doing business as Edible Arrangements, is a
gourmet gift shop located in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Lina Stillman, Esq.
         Aygul Charles, Esq.
         Jessica Flores, Esq.
         STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
         42 Broadway, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 203-2417

20E FRAME INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Encarnacion Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ERIK ENCARNACION, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 20E FRAME INC. D/B/A ETC; PYONG SU
SON; and HOU CHOUN LEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02021
(S.D.N.Y., Mar. 9, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants'
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff Encarnacion was employed by the Defendants as sushi and
soup preparer.

20E FRAME INC. D/B/A ET owns and operates a restaurant at New York,
NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102


2U INC: Bid to Dismiss Maryland Consolidated Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
2U, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the
consolidated putative class action suit remains pending before the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

On August 7 and 9, 2019, Aaron Harper and Anne M. Chinn filed
putative class action complaints against the Company, Christopher
J. Paucek, the Company's CEO, and Catherine A. Graham, the
Company's former CFO, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based upon allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business prospects and financial
projections.

The district court transferred the cases to the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, consolidated them
under docket number 8:19-cv-3455 (D. Md.), and appointed Fiyyaz
Pirani as the lead plaintiff in the consolidated action. On July
30, 2020, Mr. Pirani filed a consolidated class action complaint,
adding Harsha Mokkarala, the Company's former Chief Marketing
Officer, as a defendant. The CAC also asserts claims under Sections
11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
against Mr. Paucek, Ms. Graham, members of the Company's board of
directors, and the Company's underwriters, based on allegations
related to the Company's secondary stock offering on May 23, 2018.


The proposed class consists of all persons who acquired the
Company's securities between February 26, 2018 and July 30, 2019.

On October 27, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On
December 18, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their opposition brief and
on February 9, 2021 the defendants filed a reply brief.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit, and it
intends to vigorously defend against these claims. However, due to
the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, the
outcome of this matter is not presently determinable.

Headquartered in Landover, Maryland, 2U, Inc. provides cloud-based
SaaS solutions that address the needs of nonprofit colleges and
universities to attract, enroll and deliver quality education to
students. The 2U platform enables clients to offer full
undergraduate, graduate and doctoral programs online.

A-1 COLLECTION: Suit Seeks to Continue Class Status Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FULLMER, JOSH BURT,
SEAN MCINTYRE, and SABRINA PROVO, On behalf of Plaintiffs and
Class, v. A-1 COLLECTION AGENCY, LLC, and MOAB VALLEY HEALTHCARE,
INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00143-DN (D. Utah), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order continuing the class certification motion
deadline under DUCivR 23-1 until the Court adjudicates the pending
motions to dismiss.

On December 30, 2020, the present case was removed from state
court. Pursuant to DUCivR 23-1, the deadline for Plaintiffs to file
a motion for class certification is March 31, 2021. The Defendants
filed separate motions to dismiss on January 15, 2021. Because of
the pending motions there is no current scheduling order, the
parties have not exchanged initial disclosures, and Plaintiffs are
unable to conduct discovery. The Plaintiffs cannot submit a motion
for class certification without discovery, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 9, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cPH8PB at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel M. Baczynski, Esq.
          BACZYNSKI LAW, PLLC
          12339 S. 800 E., Ste 101
          Draper, UT 84020
          Telephone: (708) 715-2234
          E-mail: dan@bskilaw.com

The Counsel for the Defendant Moab Valley Healthcare, Inc., are:

          William B. Ingram, Esq.
          Spencer W. Young, Esq.
          STRONG & HANNI
          102 South 200 East, Suite 800
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          E-mail: syoung@strongandhanni.com
                  wingram@strongandhanni.com

The Counsel for the Defendant A-1 Collection Agency, LLC are:

          Ronald F. Price, Esq.
          Alan Dunaway, Esq.
          PRICE PARKINSON & KERR, PLLC
          5742 West Harold Gatty Drive, Suite 101
          Salt Lake City, UT 84116
          Telephone: (801) 530-2900
          E-mail: ronprice@ppktrial.com
                  alandunaway@ppktrial.com

ACCELLION INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Price Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA PRICE, individually and on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. ACCELLION, INC., Case No.
5:21-cv-01430-VKD (N.D. Calif., Feb. 26, 2021) is a class action
complaint alleging that the Accellion failed to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information that was stored on or
shared on its "Accellion FTA" file transfer service.

The Class includes all residents of the United States whose data
was stolen from Accellion in the data breach or breaches during
December 2020 and January 2021 (collectively, the "Data Breach.")

The Defendant Accellion touts that its Accellion FTA service "helps
worldwide enterprises transfer large and sensitive files securely
using a 100% private cloud, on-premise or hosted."

Allegedly, Accellion's FTA is an obsolete 20 year old technology
riddled with security vulnerabilities. Those vulnerabilities were
exploited by hackers in December 2020 when they infiltrated
Accellion's system and stole a huge number of names, social
security numbers, driver's license or state identification numbers,
dates of birth, bank account numbers, and in some cases, medical
information, including prescription information and diagnoses, and
salary information (collectively, "personally identifiable
information" or "PII"). In addition, there are reports that the
breach continued into January 2021 after Accellion failed to
successfully update its security systems, the suit adds.

The complaint further states that the list of major institutions
whose data was stolen from this Data Breach continues grow. So far,
entities as diverse as the Kroger Company, law firm Jones Day, the
State of Washington, the University of Colorado, the Reserve Bank
of New Zealand, Transport for New South Wales, the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission, and Singapore
Telecommunications have all announced major data thefts from
Accellion's FTA service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
          P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
          Catherine M. McBain, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK
          FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
          E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
                  gmb@cglaw.com
                  jrobinson@cglaw.com
                  camille@cglaw.com
                  kmcbain@cglaw.com

ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Toss Fulcher Consolidated Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the consolidated Rosi v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., et al.
and Fulcher v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., et al. suits, is still
pending.

On July 30, 2019, plaintiff Linda Rosi, or Rosi, filed a putative
class action complaint captioned Rosi v. Aclaris Therapeutics,
Inc., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the company and certain of our executive
officers.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by, among other things, failing to disclose an
alleged likelihood that regulators would scrutinize advertising
materials related to ESKATA (hydrogen peroxide) topical solution,
40% (w/w), or ESKATA, the company's non-marketed FDA-approved
product, and find that the materials minimized the risks or
overstated the efficacy of the product.  

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of
Rosi and all other persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's securities between May 8, 2018 and June 20,
2019.

On September 5, 2019, an additional plaintiff, Robert Fulcher, or
Fulcher, filed a substantially identical putative class action
complaint captioned Fulcher v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., et al.
in the same court against the same defendants.

On November 6, 2019, the court consolidated the Rosi and Fulcher
actions, or together, the Consolidated Securities Action, and
appointed Fulcher “lead plaintiff” for the putative class.

On January 24, 2020, Fulcher filed a consolidated amended complaint
in the Consolidated Securities Action, naming two additional
executive officers as defendants, extending the putative class
period to August 12, 2019, and adding allegations concerning, among
other things, alleged statements and omissions throughout the
putative class period concerning ESKATA's risks, tolerability and
effectiveness. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on April 17, 2020.

Fulcher filed an opposition to the defendants' motion on June 15,
2020, and the defendants filed a reply to such opposition on August
4, 2020.

Oral argument on the pending motion to dismiss is scheduled for
February 25, 2021. The motion remains under judicial
consideration.

Aclaris  said, "We and the other defendants dispute plaintiffs'
claims in the Consolidated Securities Action and intend to defend
the matter vigorously."

Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a pharmaceutical company.
The Company deals in identifying, developing, and commercialization
of drugs and therapies to meet needs in dermatology, medical, and
immunology sectors. Aclaris Therapeutics serves patients in the
United States. The company is based in Wayne, Pennsylvania.


ACSC MANAGEMENT: Faces Aguilar Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACSC MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
30-2021-01189301-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., March 16,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
including failure to reimburse expenses, failure to pay wages,
failure to timely pay wages when due, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to maintain accurate records and provide complete
and accurate wage statements, and failure to pay wages due upon
termination or separation.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a processor
specialist from approximately September of 2016 to approximately
August of 2020.

ACSC Management Services, Inc. is a provider of management services
company based in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Jacob N. Whitehead, Esq.
         Meghan Higday, Esq.
         WHITEHEAD EMPLOYMENT LAW
         7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 930
         Irvine, CA 92618
         Telephone: (949) 674-4922
         E-mail: reception@jnwpc.com
                 mhigday@jnwpc.com

ADT INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Preddy Class Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court granted the
company's motion to compel arbitration in Alexia Preddy v. ADT LLC
class action suit.

In June 2020, the Company was served with a class action complaint
in a case captioned Alexia Preddy v. ADT LLC and filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

By an amended complaint, the plaintiff asserts causes of action on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated as individuals
residing in homes of Company customers, and seeks to recover
damages for negligence, intrusion upon seclusion, violation of the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent hiring, supervision and
retention, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The Company moved to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint and
to compel arbitration.

In December 2020, the federal district court granted the Company's
motion to compel arbitration.

The case is stayed and administratively closed pending arbitration.
The Company's motion to dismiss was denied as moot.

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.

ADT INC: Court Narrows Claims in Doty Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the
Doty v. ADT LLC class action suit has been granted in part and
denied in part.

In May 2020, the Company was served with a class action complaint
in a case captioned Shana Doty v. ADT LLC and filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

By an amended complaint, the plaintiff asserts causes of action on
behalf of herself and other Company customers similarly situated,
and seeks to recover damages for breach of contract, negligence,
intrusion upon seclusion, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.

The Company moved to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint.

In December 2020, the federal district court dismissed the causes
of action for Intrusion Upon Seclusion and violation of the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and further ruled that plaintiff may
not seek to hold the Company vicariously liable for any intentional
torts committed by the former technician.

The Company's motion was denied on plaintiff's other claims.

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.

ADT INC: Discovery Ongoing in Archer Suit vs Defender Holdings
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit initiated by Teddy Archer against Defender
Holdings, Inc.

In January 2020, the Company acquired Defenders, which is defending
against litigation brought by Teddy Archer and seven other security
advisors who claim unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), breach of contract under state law in all states, and
a violation of state wage-hour laws in California, New Jersey, New
York, and Washington.

The lawsuit was originally filed in March 2018 in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.

During 2018, the court conditionally certified the case as an FLSA
collective action.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class for unpaid
wages.

The parties are actively engaged in discovery.

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.

ADT INC: Settlement in Shareholders' Suit Granted Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court entered an
order granting final approval of the settlement in, In re ADT Inc.
Shareholder Litigation.

Five substantially similar shareholder class action lawsuits
related to the initial public offering (IPO) in January 2018 were
filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and
for Palm Beach County, Florida in March, April, and May 2018 and
were consolidated for discovery and trial and entitled In re ADT
Inc. Shareholder Litigation.

The consolidated complaint in that action asserts claims on behalf
of a putative class of shareholder plaintiffs and sought to
represent a class of similarly situated shareholders for alleged
violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The complaint alleges that the Company defendants violated the
Securities Act because the registration statement and prospectus
used to effectuate the IPO were false and misleading in that they
allegedly misled investors with respect to litigation involving the
Company, the Company's efforts to protect its intellectual
property, and the competitive pressures faced by the Company.

A similar shareholder class action lawsuit entitled Perdomo v ADT
Inc., also related to the IPO in January 2018, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in May
2018.

In September 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle both the state court and the federal court actions.

In connection with the agreement, the plaintiffs in the Perdomo
action voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice in
October 2019. The parties agreed to a Stipulation of Settlement in
September 2020.

In January 2021, the State Court entered an order granting final
approval of the settlement.

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.

ADT INC: Settlement in Villegas Suit Gets Preliminary Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the settlement in
Villegas v. ADT, received preliminary approval from the court in
February 2021.

In June 2013, the Company was served with a class action complaint
in California State Court entitled Villegas v. ADT.

In this complaint, the plaintiff asserted that the Company violated
certain provisions of the California Alarm Act and the Los Angeles
Municipal Alarm Ordinance for its alleged failures to obtain alarm
permits for its Los Angeles customers and disclose the alarm permit
fee in its customer contracts.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for putative class members
who were required to pay enhanced false alarm fines as a result of
the Company not obtaining a valid alarm permit at the time of alarm
system installation.

The case was initially dismissed by the trial court and judgment
was entered in the Company's favor in October 2014, which the
plaintiff appealed. In September 2016, the California Appellate
Court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court.

In November 2018, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion
for class certification and certified four subclasses of customers
who received fines from the City of Los Angeles.

The case settled in January 2020, and the settlement received
preliminary approval from the court in February 2021.

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.

AEP TEXAS: Parent Continues to Defend Shareholder's Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
AEP Texas Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that AEP Corporation continues
to defend a putative class action suit initiated by its
shareholder.

In August 2020, an AEP shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio against AEP and certain of its officers for
alleged violations of securities laws.

The complaint alleges misrepresentations or omissions by AEP
regarding: (a) its alleged participation in public corruption with
respect to the passage of Ohio House Bill 6, (b) its regulatory,
legislative and lobbying activities in Ohio and (c) its clean
energy strategy.

The complaint seeks monetary damages among other forms of relief.

AEP Texas said, "The company will continue to defend against the
claims. Management is unable to determine a range of potential
losses that is reasonably possible of occurring."

AEP Texas Inc. engages in the transmission and distribution of
electric power. It serves approximately 1,030,000 retail customers
in southern, western, and central Texas. The company was formerly
known as AEP Utilities, Inc., and changed its name to AEP Texas
Inc. in December 2016.  The company was incorporated in 1925 and is
based in Corpus Christi, Texas. AEP Texas Inc. is a subsidiary of
American Electric Power Company, Inc.

AGEAGLE AERIAL: Faces Lopez Securities Suit Over 36.4% Shares Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN LOPEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AGEAGLE AERIAL SYSTEMS, INC., J. MICHAEL DROZD, NICOLE
FERNANDEZ-MCGOVERN, BRET CHILCOTT and BARRETT MOONEY, Case No.
2:21-cv-01810 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 26, 2021) is a class action lawsuit
filed on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
AgEagle securities between September 3, 2019 and February 18, 2021,
inclusive (the Class Period) seeking to recover compensable damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On September 3, 2019, AgEagle issued a press release entitled:
"AgEagle Enters the Fast-Growing Commercial Drone Package Delivery
Market." The subtitle read: "Initial Purchase Orders Received and
Testing Underway." On April 13, 2020, AgEagle filed its annual
report on Form 10-K 17 with the SEC for the fiscal year ending on
December 31, 2019 (the "2019 10-K"). The 2019 10-K was signed by
Defendants Mooney, Fernandez-McGovern and Chilcott.

On October 14, 2020, news broke that Amazon did not have a
partnership agreement with AgEagle, and in fact never did. The
Wichita Business Journal published a story with the headline:
"Exclusive: Who's AgEagle's big customer? We now know who it's
not." On February 18, 2021, Bonitas Research published a report
revealing that AgEagle "was a pump & dump scheme orchestrated by
AgEagle founder and former chairman Bret Chilcott and other UAVS
insiders to defraud US investors."

On this news, shares of AgEagle, fell $5.13, or 36.4%, to close at
$8.96 on February 18, 2021, damaging investors. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.

The Plaintiff purchased AgEagle securities during the Class Period
and was economically damaged thereby.

The Defendant AgEagle purports to be a commercial drone company.
According to AgEagle's website, the Company is engaged in the
design, engineering, and manufacturing of commercial drones, as
well as in providing drone services and solutions to the
agriculture industry. AgEagle is incorporated in Nevada with its
principal office located in Wichita, Kansas. AgEagle's common stock
trades on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the ticker
symbol "UAVS." The Individual Defendants are officers of the
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

AGEAGLE AERIAL: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of April 27 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of AgEagle Aerial Systems,
Inc. (NYSE: UAVS). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff
stage. Investors who purchased UAVS stock or other securities
between September 3, 2019 and February 18, 2021 may contact the
Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/AgEagle to submit their information. Investors
may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/AgEagle

The case alleges that AgEagle and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1)
AgEagle did not have a partnership with Amazon and in fact never
had any relationship with Amazon; and (2) rather than correct the
public's understanding about a partnership with Amazon, AgEagle
actively contributed to the rumor that they had a partnership with
Amazon.

Interested AgEagle investors have until April 27, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be
a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. If investors
choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member.
The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/AgEagle

Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.

CONTACT:

Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/AgEagle [GN]


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Karth Awaits Decision in Class Suit Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that a decision has
not yet been issued in the appeal made by the plaintiffs in Karth
v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

Four putative class action lawsuits were filed against Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or Keryx, and certain of its former
officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and
James Oliviero) and consolidated in the Massachusetts District
Court, captioned Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
(filed October 26, 2016, with an amended complaint filed on
February 27, 2017).

Plaintiff sought to represent all stockholders who purchased shares
of Keryx common stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016. The
complaint alleges that Keryx and the named individual defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading
statements concerning Keryx, its supplier relationships, and future
prospects, and that the allegedly misleading statements were not
made known to the market until Keryx's August 1, 2016 announcement
of an interruption in its supply of Auryxia.

By order dated July 19, 2018, the Massachusetts District Court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint. On February 27, 2019, defendants filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings. On April 30, 2019, plaintiff
filed a motion to further amend his complaint, and also moved for
class certification. The Massachusetts District Court heard oral
argument on the motions for judgment on the pleadings and class
certification on June 19, 2019.

On September 23, 2019, the Massachusetts District Court issued a
Memorandum and Order denying plaintiff's motion for class
certification, granting defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings, and denying plaintiff's motion for leave to further
amend his Complaint. That same day, the Massachusetts District
Court entered a final judgment in favor of defendants on all
claims.

On September 24, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The
First Circuit Court of Appeals held oral argument on September 15,
2020, and a decision has not yet been issued.

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients
with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Abante Rooter, Naiman Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative
class action suit initiated by Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc. and
Sidney Naiman, has been dismissed.

On July 29, 2020, a putative class action was filed against
Alarm.com Incorporated d/b/a ICN Acquisition, among other
defendants, by Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc. and Sidney Naiman in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).

The complaint sought statutory damages under the TCPA, injunctive
relief, and other relief.

The matter was resolved in December 2020. On January 27, 2021, the
Court entered an order dismissing the case.

Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software platform
solutions for smart residential and commercial properties in the
United States and internationally. The company provides interactive
security solutions to control and monitor their security systems,
as well as connected security devices, including door locks, motion
sensors, thermostats, garage doors, and video cameras; and high
definition video monitoring solutions, such as live streaming,
smart clip capture, secure cloud storage, video alerts, continuous
HD recording, and commercial video surveillance solutions.
Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered
in Tysons, Virginia.


ALCOA CORPORATION: Lavoie Putative Class Suit v. Unit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Alcoa Canada Ltd., Alcoa
Limitee, Societe Canadienne de Metaux Reynolds Limitee and Canadian
British Aluminum, continues to defend a putative class action suit
headed by Dany Lavoie.

In August 2005, Dany Lavoie, a resident of Baie Comeau in the
Canadian Province of Quebec, filed a Motion for Authorization to
Institute a Class Action and for Designation of a Class
Representative against Alcoa Canada Ltd., Alcoa Limitee, Societe
Canadienne de Metaux Reynolds Limitee and Canadian British Aluminum
in the Superior Court of Québec in the District of Baie Comeau,
alleging that defendants, as the present and past owners and
operators of an aluminum smelter in Baie Comeau, had negligently
allowed the emission of certain contaminants from the smelter on
the lands and houses of the St. Georges neighborhood and its
environs causing property damage and health concerns.

In May 2007, the court authorized a class action suit on behalf of
all people who suffered property or personal injury damages caused
by the emission of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from the
Company's aluminum smelter in Baie Comeau. In September 2007,
plaintiffs filed the claim against the original defendants.

The Soderberg smelting operations that plaintiffs allege to be the
source of emissions of concern ceased operations in 2013 and have
been dismantled.

A court appointed expert, engaged to perform analysis of the
potential impacts from the emissions in accordance with a sampling
protocol agreed to by the parties, submitted its report to the
court in May 2019. The parties are reviewing the results of the
report with their own experts.

Alcoa said, "At this stage of the proceeding, we are unable to
reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss."

Alcoa Corporation is a global industry leader in bauxite, alumina,
and aluminum products. The Company is built on a foundation of
strong values and operating excellence dating back over 130 years
to the world-changing discovery that made aluminum an affordable
and vital part of modern life. The company is based in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

ALLINA HEALTH: Skaro Sues Over Failure to Provide Health Records
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Skaro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Allina Health System, Case No. 27-CV-21-3053 (Minn. 4th
Judicial Dist. Ct., Hennepin Cty., March 16, 2021), is brought
against the Defendant for their failure to timely provide health
care records to its patients in violation of the Minnesota law.

Access to personal health information is a fundamental right.
Minnesota law recognizes this right and requires healthcare
providers to give their patients access to this information in a
way that is inexpensive and convenient within 30 calendar days of a
request. Minnesota law has established a straightforward process
that allows patients to request and obtain their medical records
under the Minnesota Health Records Act ("MHRA"). Healthcare
providers are well aware of this process, and they are legally
required to follow the process set forth in the MHRA when a patient
submits a request for his or her medical records.

A negligently injured patient has a legal right to pursue
compensation from the responsible healthcare provider through the
civil justice system. Healthcare providers, however, can prevent
patients from asserting their rights by denying or delaying access
to personal health information. This conduct is illegal, unfair,
and wrong. Regrettably, the Defendant has engaged in unlawful and
unethical conduct by failing to timely provide health care records
to its patients. The Defendant often erects barriers to providing
this information to their patents in direct violation of Minnesota
law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Kim Skaro is a resident of Coon Rapids, Minnesota.

Allina owns and operates a broad spectrum of health care services
and facilities in Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon E. Thompson, Esq.
          Barry M. Landy, Esq.
          Colin F. Peterson, Esq.
          Rachel L. Barrett, Esq.
          CIRESI CONLIN LLP
          225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-361-8200
          Email: bet@ciresiconlin.com
                 bml@ciresiconlin.com
                 cfp@ciresiconlin.com
                 rlb@ciresiconlin.com


AMARIN CORP: Bid to Nix Consolidated Class Suit in NJ Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amarin Corporation plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated putative class suit entitled, In re Amarin
Corporation PLC Securities Litigation, No. 3:19-cv-06601, is
pending.

On February 22, 2019, a purported investor in the Company's
publicly traded securities filed a putative class action lawsuit
against Amarin Corporation plc, the chief executive officer and
chief scientific officer in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Debendra Sharma v. Amarin Corporation plc,
John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum, No. 2:19-cv-06601 (D.N.J. Feb.
22, 2019).

On March 12, 2019, another purported investor filed a substantially
similar lawsuit captioned Richard Borghesi v. Amarin Corporation
plc, John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum, No. 3:19-cv-08423 (D.N.J.
March 12, 2019).

On May 14, 2019 the court consolidated the cases under the caption
In re Amarin Corporation PLC Securities Litigation, No.
3:19-cv-06601 and appointed two other purported shareholders, Dan
Kotecki and the Gaetano Cecchini Living Trust, as Co-Lead
Plaintiffs.

Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, or
Amended Complaint, on July 22, 2019 that adds as defendants the
Company's current chief medical officer and the Company's former
chief executive officer, who is a current director. The Amended
Complaint alleges that from September 24, 2018 to November 9, 2018
the Company misled investors by releasing topline results for the
REDUCE-IT study without disclosing data on biomarker increases in
the placebo group as compared with baseline measurement.

The Amended Complaint alleges that these data suggest that the
mineral oil placebo used in the REDUCE-IT study may have interfered
with statin absorption in the placebo group, which they allege may
have increased adverse outcomes in the placebo group. The Amended
Complaint further alleges that these purported misrepresentations
and omissions inflated the share price.

Based on these allegations, the suit asserts claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks unspecified monetary
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

A court determination on the Company's motion to dismiss this
litigation is pending.

The Company believes that it has valid defenses and will vigorously
defend against the claims, but cannot predict the outcome.

Amarin said, "The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the loss
exposure, if any, associated with these claims. The Company has
insurance coverage that is anticipated to cover any significant
loss exposure that may arise from this action after payment by the
Company of the associated deductible obligation."

Amarin Corporation plc, a pharmaceutical company, engages in the
development and commercialization of therapeutics for the treatment
of cardiovascular diseases in the United States. The company was
formerly known as Ethical Holdings plc and changed its name to
Amarin Corporation plc in 1999. Amarin Corporation plc was
incorporated in 1989 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.

AMERICAN FINANCE: Bid to Amend NY Consolidated Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that plaintiffs
motion to amend the consolidated putative class action suit in New
York, is pending.

On October 26, 2018, Terry Hibbard, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, against the Company, AR Global, the
Advisor, the Former Chairmen, the Company's chief financial officer
at the time of the Merger and each of the Company's directors
immediately prior to the Merger. All of the directors immediately
prior to the Merger, except for David Gong, currently serve as
directors of the Company.

The complaint alleged that the registration statement pursuant to
which RCA shareholders acquired shares of the Company during the
Merger contained materially incomplete and misleading information.
The complaint asserted violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against the Company's chief financial officer at the time of
the Merger and each of the Company's directors immediately prior to
the Merger, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
against the Company and the Company's current chief executive
officer, president and chair of the board of directors, and control
person liability against the Advisor, AR Global and the Former
Chairmen— under Section 15 of the Securities Act.

The complaint sought unspecified damages and rescission of the
Company's sale of stock pursuant to the registration statement.

On March 6, 2019, Susan Bracken, Michael P. Miller and Jamie
Beckett, purported stockholders of the Company, filed a putative
class action complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York
County, on behalf of themselves and others who purchased shares of
common stock through the Company's then effective distribution
reinvestment plan, against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, the
Former Chairmen, the Company's chief financial officer at the time
of the Merger and each of the Company's directors immediately prior
to the Merger.

The complaint alleged that the April and December 2016 registration
statements pursuant to which class members purchased shares
contained materially incomplete and misleading information. The
complaint asserted violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act
against the Company, the Company's chief financial officer at the
time of the Merger and each of the Company's directors immediately
prior to the Merger, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act against the Company and the Company's current chief
executive officer, president and chair of the board of directors,
and control person liability against the Advisor, AR Global and the
Former Chairmen under Section 15 of the Securities Act.

The complaint sought unspecified damages and either rescission of
the Company's sale of stock or rescissory damages.

On April 30, 2019, Lynda Callaway, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, against the Company, AR Global, the
Advisor, the Former Chairmen, the Company's chief financial officer
at the time of the Merger and each of the Company's directors
immediately prior to the Merger.

The complaint alleged that the registration statement pursuant to
which plaintiff and other class members acquired shares of the
Company during the Merger contained materially incomplete and
misleading information. The complaint asserted violations of
Section 11 of the Securities Act against the Company, the Company's
chief financial officer at the time of the Merger and each of the
Company's directors immediately prior to the Merger, violations of
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against the Company and the
Company's current chief executive officer, president and chair of
the board of directors, and control person liability under Section
15 of the Securities Act against the Advisor, AR Global, and the
Former Chairmen.

The complaint sought unspecified damages and rescission of the
Company's sale of stock pursuant to the registration statement.

On July 11, 2019, the New York State Supreme Court issued an order
consolidating the three above-mentioned cases: Terry Hibbard,
Bracken, and Callaway (the Consolidated Cases). The Court also
stayed the Consolidated Cases pending a decision on the motions to
dismiss in the St. Clair-Hibbard litigation pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Following the federal court's decision on St. Clair-Hibbard the
motions to dismiss, on October 31, 2019 plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated class action complaint in the Consolidated Cases
seeking substantially similar remedies from the same defendants.

The Company moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on
December 16, 2019. After the parties completed briefing on this
motion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
issued its decision affirming dismissal of the St. Clair-Hibbard
action.

Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint, purportedly to limit it
to claims still viable in spite of the results of the federal
action. The proposed second amended complaint no longer contains
direct claims against the Company.

Instead, plaintiffs seek to pursue state law claims derivatively
against the Advisor, AR Global, the Company's initial chief
executive officer and chair of the board of directors, the
Company's current directors and David Gong, a former director, with
the Company as a nominal defendant.

Plaintiffs' motion to amend has been fully briefed, and oral
argument was held in November 2020. The parties are now awaiting a
decision from the Court.

The Company believes that the proposed second amended complaint is
without merit and intends to defend against it vigorously. Due to
the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable loss
or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this time.

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly-traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.


AMERICAN FINANCE: Dismissal of St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the
lower court's dismissal of the complaint initiated by Carolyn St.
Clair-Hibbard.

On February 8, 2018, Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard, a purported
stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, and both
individuals who previously served as the Company's chief executive
officer and chair of the board of directors (the Former Chairmen).


On February 23, 2018, the complaint was amended to, among other
things, assert some claims on the plaintiff's own behalf and other
claims on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
shareholders of the Company as a class.

On April 26, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On May 25, 2018, plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that the proxy
materials used to solicit stockholder approval of the Merger at the
Company's 2017 annual meeting were materially incomplete and
misleading.

The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act against the Company, as well as control person liability
against the Advisor, AR Global, and the Former Chairmen under
20(a). It also asserts state law claims for breach of fiduciary
duty against the Advisor, and claims for aiding and abetting such
breaches, of fiduciary duty against the Advisor, AR Global and the
Former Chairmen. The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
rescission of the Company's advisory agreement (or severable
portions thereof) which became effective when the Merger became
effective, and a declaratory judgment that certain provisions of
the Company's advisory agreement are void. The Company believes the
second amended complaint is without merit and intends to defend
vigorously.

On June 22, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. On August 1, 2018, plaintiff filed an opposition to
defendants' motions to dismiss. Defendants filed reply papers on
August 22, 2018, and oral argument was held on September 26, 2018.


On September 23, 2019, the Court granted defendants' motions and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and the plaintiff appealed.
On May 5, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the complaint.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly-traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.


AMERICAN INT'L: Plaintiff's Renewed Class Certification Bid Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maison D'Artiste v.
American International Group, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-07574-SVW-E (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson
entered an order denying the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class
certification with prejudice.

Judge Wilson said, "The Plaintiff has not cured the defects
articulated in the Court's prior order denying class certification,
and the Court, therefore, denies the renewed motion with
prejudice.

The Court has addressed the facts giving rise to this suit and
Plaintiff’s theory of liability in three prior orders and need
not engage in an extended background discussion. In two orders
granting in part Defendants' motions to dismiss and/or strike, the
Court limited the remedies that Plaintiff could obtain under the
UCL. Specifically, the Court invoked its discretion to decline
jurisdiction over the request for declaratory relief and determined
that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim for injunctive relief
under the UCL. However, the Court held that Plaintiff had stated a
claim for restitution under the UCL.

The putative class action seeks to recover for alleged wrongful
depreciation in insurance payouts.

American International Group, Inc., also known as AIG, is an
American multinational finance and insurance corporation with
operations in more than 80 countries and jurisdictions. As of
January 1, 2019, AIG companies employed 49,600 people.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tHzRrQ at no extra charge.[CC]

AMERICOLD REALTY: Sheffler Sues Over Failure Secure & Safeguard PII
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Sheffler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AMERICOLD REALTY TRUST, a Maryland corporation, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01075-CC (N.D. Ga., March 16, 2021), is brought against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
personal identifiable information that the Defendant required from
its employees as a condition of employment, including without
limitation, names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth,
government-issued ID numbers, financial account numbers,
credit/debit card numbers, passwords or login credentials, digital
signatures, mother's maiden names, birth certificates, biometric
information, and/or medical/health insurance information
(collectively, "personal identifiable information" or "PII").

On November 16, 2020, Defendant learned that a breach of the
Defendant's computer network had occurred and that it involved
ransomware (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant determined that the
Data Breach involved unauthorized activity on its network between
October 29, 2020 and November 16, 2020, including unauthorized
access to files on Defendant's servers. These servers contained
files that in turn contained information about the Defendant's
current and former employees. More than three months later, in a
"Notice of Data Breach," dated March 4, 2021, the Defendant advised
the Plaintiff of the Data Breach.

By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
PII of the Plaintiff, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable
duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant
admits that the unencrypted PII exposed to "unauthorized activity"
included names, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth. The
exposed PII of the Plaintiff can be sold on the dark web. Hackers
can access and then offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted PII
to criminals. The Plaintiff now face a lifetime risk of identity
theft, which is heightened here by the loss of Social Security
numbers. This PII was compromised due to the Defendant's negligent
and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the
PII of the Plaintiff.

In addition to the Defendant's failure to prevent the Data Breach,
after discovering the breach, the Defendant waited several months
to report it to the states' Attorneys General and affected
individuals. The Defendant has also purposefully maintained secret
the specific vulnerabilities and root causes of the breach and has
not informed the Plaintiff of that information. As a result of this
delayed response, the Plaintiff had no idea their PII had been
compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant
risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social,
and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective
lifetimes, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a Citizen of Ohio residing in Defiance County,
Ohio who received the Defendant's Notice of Data Breach, dated
March 4, 2021.

The Defendant provides "technology-based engineered solutions for
the temperature controlled supply chain industry."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Bosseler, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          191 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 4200
          P.O. Box 57007
          Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
          Email: gbosseler@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX BUSINESS DIVISION
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 223-5505
          Email: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                 rmaxey@ForThePeople.com


AMPHP INC: Nisbett Suit Seeks Full Website Access for Blind People
------------------------------------------------------------------
KAREEM NISBETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMPHP, INC., d/b/a Amp Human, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02332-JPC (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's Website,
www.amphuman.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the Website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1)
lack of alt-text for images, (2) document titles are blank, (3)
Webpages use duplicate IDs, which cause problems in screen readers,
(4) form controls have no label, (5) links use general text like
read more or learn more with no surrounding text explaining the
link purpose, (6) button elements are empty, (7) form field labels
are not unique on a page or enclosed in a fieldset that makes the
label unique, (8) at least 20 headings are empty, added the suit.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

Amphp, Inc., doing business as Amp Human, is an online retailer of
skin creams and supplements located in Park City, Utah. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Dan Shaked, Esq.
         SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
         14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
         Scarsdale, NY 10583
         Telephone: (917) 373-9128
         E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com

ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Angiano Suit Removed from State Ct. to C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DENISE ANGIANO; CHARLEY
KARPINSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV WORLDWIDE, INC., and
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-01879-PA-PVC (Filed Nov. 24, 2020), was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on Feb. 26, 2021.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
20STCV45069 to the proceeding.

The entire complaint was premised on the Defendant's sale of Beck's
Non-Alcoholic malt beverages ("Beck's NA") in California.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative class, assert that "the
Defendants have made millions of dollars in fraudulent sales", and
they and the class thus are entitled to restitutionary damages
because, "the Plaintiffs were induced to make purchases that they
would not have made if they were not misled about the fact that
Beck's non-alcoholic beer contains alcohol."

Anheuser-Busch manufactures alcoholic and non alcoholic beverages.
The Company produces and distributes beers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          Cinela Aziz, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-Mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  cinela@wilshirelawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David H. Stern, Esq.
          Alex E. Spjute, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 820-8800
          Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
          E-mail: dstern@bakerlaw.com
                  aspjute@bakerlaw.com

AQUA METALS: Court Junks California Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aqua Metals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the defendants' motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, In Re: Aqua Metals, Inc.
Securities Litigation Case No 3:17-cv-07142, has been granted.

Beginning on December 15, 2017, three purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District California against the Company, Stephen Clarke,
Thomas Murphy and Mark Weinswig.

On March 23, 2018, the cases were consolidated under the caption In
Re: Aqua Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation Case No 3:17-cv-07142.
On May 23, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and approved
counsel for the lead plaintiffs. On July 20, 2018, the lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint (Amended
Complaint), on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the
Company's securities between May 19, 2016 and November 9, 2017,
against the company, Stephen Clarke, Thomas Murphy and Selwyn
Mould.

The Amended Complaint alleges the defendants made false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's lead recycling
operations and conducted deceptive site visits in violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and seeks to hold the individual defendants
as control persons pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Amended Complaint also alleges a violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged false and misleading
statements concerning the company's lead recycling operations
contained in, or incorporated by reference in, our Registration
Statement on Form S-3 filed in connection with the Company's
November 2016 public offering.

That claim is asserted on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased shares pursuant to, or that are traceable to, that
Registration Statement. The Amended Complaint seeks to hold the
individual defendants liable as control persons pursuant to Section
15 of the Securities Act. The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified
damages and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 18, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint in its entirety and the plaintiff subsequently
filed its opposition to the motion. In an order dated August 14,
2019, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Court granted the motion to dismiss the Securities Act Section
11 claim and the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim
based on alleged false and misleading statements and gave the
plaintiffs leave to amend to address the deficiencies. The Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 claims regarding site visits. On September 20, 2019, the
plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint that dropped the
Securities Act Section 11 claim but otherwise alleges the same
claims as were alleged previously.

The Second Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages and
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. On November 1, 2019, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5 claims in the Second Amended Complaint based on
alleged false and misleading statements, but not the claims
regarding site visits.

In an Order dated November 16, 2020, the Court granted the motion
and dismissed with prejudice the claim based on alleged false and
misleading statements.

The Company denies that the claims in the Second Amended Complaint
have any merit and the Company intends to vigorously defend the
action.

Aqua Metals, Inc. engages in the recycling of lead primarily in the
United States. It produces and sells hard lead, lead compounds, and
plastics. The company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in
McCarran, Nevada.

AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Reminds of April 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. ("Aquestive" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: AQST) from December 2, 2019, through September
25, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Aquestive securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Aquestive Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose to investors: (i) data included in the Libervant
NDA submission showed a lower drug exposure level than desired for
certain weight groups; (ii) the foregoing significantly decreased
the Libervant NDA's approval prospects; (iii) as a result, it was
foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the Libervant NDA in its
current form; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 25, 2020, Aquestive announced receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA indicating that the review
cycle for the Libervant NDA was complete but the application could
not be approved in its current form. Specifically, Aquestive
advised investors that "[i]n the CRL, the FDA cited that, in a
study submitted by the Company with the NDA, certain weight groups
showed a lower drug exposure level than desired. The Company
intends to provide to the FDA additional information on PK modeling
to demonstrate that dose adjustments will obtain the desired
exposure levels."

On this news, Aquestive's stock price fell $2.64 per share, or
34.69%, to close at $4.97 per share on September 28, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 30, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Aquestive securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/aquestivetherapeuticsinc-aqst-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-369/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact Information:

Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Lewakowski Sues Over Stock Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEANNA LEWAKOWSKI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC., KEITH J.
KENDALL, and JOHN T. MAXWELL, Case No. 1:21-cv-03751 (D.N.J., March
1, 2021) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Aquestive securities between
December 2, 2019 and September 25, 2020, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its top officials.

On December 2, 2019, Aquestive announced the completion of the
rolling submission of a New Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for Libervant Buccal Film for
the management of seizure clusters (the "Libervant NDA").

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the data
included in the Libervant NDA submission showed a lower drug
exposure level than desired for certain weight groups, the suit
asserts.

On September 25, 2020, Aquestive announced receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA indicating that the review
cycle for the Libervant NDA was complete but the application could
not be approved in its current form. Specifically, Aquestive
advised investors that "[i]n the CRL, the FDA cited that, in a
study submitted by the Company with the NDA, certain weight groups
showed a lower drug exposure level than desired.

The Company intends to provide to the FDA additional information on
PK modeling to demonstrate that dose adjustments will obtain the
desired exposure levels."

On this news, Aquestive's stock price fell $2.64 per share, or
34.69%, to close at $4.97 per share on September 28, 2020.

As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

The Plaintiff acquired Aquestive securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the
revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures.

Aquestive was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Warren, New
Aquestive is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on
identifying, developing, and commercializing various products to
address unmet medical needs. The Company's most advanced
proprietary product candidate is Libervant (diazepam), a buccal
soluble film formulation of diazepam for the treatment of recurrent
epileptic seizures. The Individual Defendants are officers of the
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terrence W. Scudieri, Jr.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Jr.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Jr.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Jr.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: tscudieri@pomlaw.com
                  tscudieri@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ
          & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

AUSTRALIA: Lawyers Need to Determine Strain in COVID-19 Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Mills, writing for The Age, reports that lawyers suing
security companies that worked in Victoria's bungled hotel
quarantine program need to work out which hotel the COVID-19 strain
that killed their client's father came from before the class action
can proceed.

Law firm Arnold Thomas & Becker is pursuing Unified Security Group
and MSS Security on behalf of lead plaintiff Dragan Markovic, whose
father contracted COVID-19 in a nursing home and died at the end of
August in hospital.

He was among the 800 people who died in Victoria's second wave,
with 99.8 per cent of cases traced to outbreaks in the quarantine
program at two of the hotels: the Rydges on Swanston and the
Stamford Plaza.

The case is one of three Victorian class actions arising out of the
pandemic. The other two, one from businesses and the other from a
young man who lost his job, focus on economic losses caused by the
lockdowns last year.

In Mr Markovic's case, his lawyers allege failures by the security
companies led to the spread of the virus.

Tim Tobin, SC, told the Supreme Court on Wednesday lawyers were
still unable to say which hotel the strain Nenad Markovic
contracted came from.

"There will be no doubt it will have come out of one of the
hotels," Mr Tobin said.

"Once the cluster is identified in relation to Mr Markovic, we will
then proceed in relation to his claim against the hotel from which
the cluster came, and therefore the security company responsible
for that hotel."

Unified Security supplied guards to the Rydges -- the site from
which 90 per cent of cases came -- while MSS provided security for
the Stamford.

MSS Security's lawyer Lachlan Armstrong, QC, said there was a
slight chance Mr. Markovic was infected with a strain that didn't
come from the hotels.

The hearing before Justice John Dixon heard the plaintiffs couldn't
directly use evidence put before Justice Jennifer Coate's inquiry
last year into the bungled program. The inquiry found there was a
lack of training provided to workers and inadequate infection
control processes among a litany of other failures.

Mr Tobin told the court that didn't prevent lawyers from
independently accessing some of the inquiry's evidence, such as
calling the same witnesses who were before the inquiry.

Justice Dixon adjourned the case for a date later this month.

The court also dealt with two other COVID-related class actions
brought on the basis of the economic loss caused by the state
government's lockdowns.

In one, lead plaintiffs Keilor Park restaurant 5 Districts NY and
its owner Anthony Ferrara, represented by lawyers from Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, allege the government's bungling of
the hotel quarantine program led to restrictions that devastated
businesses throughout the state.

In the other, 21-year-old Jordan Roberts, who lost his job at a
Tullamarine warehouse just after stage four restrictions came into
force, and Carbone Lawyers allege Mr Roberts' retrenchment was the
result of mistakes by the government in hotel quarantine.

Rachel Doyle, SC, is defending the government in both class
actions. The court heard on Wednesday that the defendants are
applying to strike out both cases in a hearing in May.

Other court action against the government's COVID-19 policies has
so far failed.

Restaurant owner Michelle Loielo lost her lawsuit in November. She
had alleged the curfew during lockdown was unreasonable or
disproportionate and infringed her human rights.

The High Court also dismissed a constitutional challenge from
Sorrento hospitality figure Julian Gerner, who tried to argue the
restrictions violated his freedom of movement. [GN]


BACTOLAC PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Narrows Claims in Copley Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLES COPLEY, JASON EVANS, HUMBERTO GARCIA, LUZ
ANGELINA GARCIA, JOAN McDONALD, JOHN PETERSON, BETTY PRESSLEY,
NATALIE ROBERTS, NORMAN SKARE, individually and as person
representative for BETTY SKARE, DAVID STONE, and KAYE WINK,
individually and as next of kin of DONALD WINK, Plaintiffs v.
BACTOLAC PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; NATURMED, INC. d/b/a INSTITUTE FOR
VIBRANT LIVING; and INDEPENDENT VITAL LIFE, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 18-CV-575 (FB) (PK) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Frederic Block of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered a
Memorandum and Order:

     (i) granting in part and denying in part Bactolac's motion
         to dismiss some of the Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to
         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6);

    (ii) denying Bactolac's motion to strike the Plaintiffs'
         prayer for punitive damages; and

   (iii) granting in part and denying in part Bactolac's motion
         for judgment on the pleadings on the cross-claims of its
         co-Defendant, Naturmed, pursuant to Federal Rule of
         Civil Procedure 12(c).

Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs Claims

The Plaintiffs used "All Day Energy Greens" ("ADEG"), a dietary
supplement that they claim was a "dangerous mixture that resulted
in serious illness and/or death among those who consumed it."  ADEG
was designed, marketed, distributed, and sold by NaturMed.  The
actual product, however, was blended and packaged by Bactolac
pursuant to a contract with NaturMed.  After receiving customer
complaints, NaturMed voluntarily recalled ADEG beginning in 2016.

Invoking the Court's jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act, the Plaintiffs -- who hail from 10 different states -- sued
NaturMed, its alleged successor-in-interest, Independent Vital
Life, LCC, and Bactolac in 2018.  Their general theory is that ADEG
was not safe for human consumption because Bactolac failed to
follow NaturMed's contractual instructions by adding inferior
ingredients.

That theory was initially presented in 36 separate claims under the
laws of 12 different states, in addition to general common-law.
Fortunately, the Court need not address all 36 as the Plaintiff
have withdrawn 13 claims in response to the motion to dismiss; a
fourteenth is asserted only against NaturMed.  Of the remaining 22
claims, Bactolac has not moved to dismiss 14.

Thus, the parties' dispute is focused on the following eight
claims:

      a. Claim I alleges, on behalf of all Plaintiffs, that
Bactolac violated the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sectionn 2301-2310.  The act provides a federal cause of action for
breach of warranty under state law.  Thus, claims under the
Magnuson-Moss Act stand or fall with the Plaintiff's express and
implied warranty claims under state law.  Since Bactolac has not
moved to dismiss all of the state-law warranty claims, Judge Block
holds the federal claim survives as well.

      b. Claim III alleges, on behalf of all Plaintiffs, that
Bactolac violated Section 349 of New York's General Business Law,
which prohibits "deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any
business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in
this state."  Since no Plaintiff is a New York resident, the claim
is apparently premised on the fact that Bactolac is headquartered
on Long Island.  The Judge finds that neither the transaction nor
the alleged deception occurred in New York.  Indeed, there was no
contact at all between the Plaintiffs and Bactolac.  In any event,
Section 349 covers only "consumer-oriented" conduct.  Accordingly,
private contractual disputes which are unique to the parties do not
fall within the ambit of the statute.

      c. Claim V: Plaintiff Betty Pressley, an Alabama resident,
alleges that Bactolac violated Alabama's Deceptive Trade Practices
Act.  Pressley alleges that she experienced gastrointestinal
illness in 2014 and received a recall notice in 2016; the complaint
was not filed until 2018.  The Judge cannot say, as a matter of
law, that experiencing illness and receiving a recall notice two
years later would put a reasonable person on even inquiry notice of
a connection to ADEG.  Even if it would have, neither the product
nor the recall provided any facts as to Bactolac's role.

      d. Claim IX: Plaintiff Jason Evans, a California resident,
alleges that Bactolac violated Section 17500 of California's
Business and Professions Code, which prohibits untrue or misleading
statements "in any newspaper or other publication, or any
advertising device, or by public outcry or proclamation, or in any
other manner or means whatever, including over the Internet."  The
Judge holds that a company that affixes a label at the behest of
another company responsible for a product's marketing and
distribution to the pubic (as NaturMed was for ADEG) does not, in
any reasonable sense, "advertise" the product.

      e. Claim XIX: Plaintiff Natalie Roberts, a Missouri resident,
alleges that Bactolac breached an implied warranty under Missouri
law. "Under Missouri law, a remote purchaser may bring suit against
the manufacturer for breach of implied warranties."  However, the
purchaser must also provide "notice to the seller of the injury."
The complaint alleges no such notice.

      f. Claim XXIX: Plaintiff Charles Copley, a Virginia resident,
alleges that Bactolac violated Virginia's Consumer Protection Act,
which prohibits various deceptive practices "by a supplier in
connection with a consumer transaction."  The Judge finds that
Bactolac did not itself engage in consumer transactions.  Nor did
it sell, lease or license goods to NaturMed; rather, it
manufactured NaturMed's product pursuant to a contract.  Such an
arrangement is not covered by the statutory definition.

      g. Claim XXXII: Plaintiff Norman Skare, a Wisconsin resident,
alleges that Bactolac violated Wisconsin's Deceptive Trade Practice
Act, which prohibits any "'advertisement, announcement, statement
or representation to the public,' which contains an `assertion,
representation or statement of fact' that is 'untrue, deceptive or
misleading.'"  The complaint does not allege that Bactolac
advertised, announced, stated, or represented anything to the
public with respect to ADEG; as with Claim IX, the Judge concludes
that affixing a label designed by NaturMed does not qualify.

      h. Claim XXXVI alleges a common-law claim of unjust
enrichment on behalf of all the Plaintiffs.  Specifically, the
Plaintiffs allege that they "conferred a monetary benefit on the
Defendants in the form of monies paid for All Day Energy Greens."
That benefit, however, was conferred only on NaturMed.  Any benefit
indirectly received by Bactolac from the sale of ADEG is
insufficient to support a claim of unjust enrichment.

Motion to Strike

Several of the Plaintiffs' claims seek punitive damages.  Bactolac
argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the standard for
such damages under New York law.  But as the Plaintiffs point out,
their requests for punitive damages are tied to individual claims,
only one of which is governed by New York law.

Judge Block holds that in any event, the complaint adequately
pleads entitlement to punitive damages under New York law.  The
Plaintiffs have alleged that Bactolac substituted ingredients
without safety testing them, that it continued to do so after being
informed of reports of illness, and that it covered up its actions.
It may prove to be the case, of course, that Bactolac did nothing
wrong, or that it was merely negligent.  But the Judge cannot say,
based solely on the allegations of the complaint, that punitive
damages are not available.

Motion to Dismiss Naturemed's Cross-Claims

NaturMed has asserted cross-claims for (1) contractual indemnity,
(2) breach of contract, (3) fraud, (4) breach of express warranty,
(5) breach of implied warranty, and (6) negligence.  Bactolac moves
to dismiss all but the indemnity counterclaim.  It argues that they
are barred by issue preclusion and claim preclusion.

In addition to disputing the Plaintiffs' claims, NaturMed and
Bactolac argue between themselves as to who is responsible for the
alleged defect in ADEG.  Bactolac argues that NaturMed's "untested"
formula is to blame, while NaturMed argues that Bactolac did not
comply with its contractual specifications, substituting inferior
ingredients and using unsanitary manufacturing processes.

Among other things, Judge grants Bactolac's motion for judgment on
the pleadings with respect to NaturMed's cross-claims for fraud and
negligence.  NaturMed did not raise its counterclaims of fraud and
negligence in the Arizona action.  It argues that it could not have
done so because those claims had not yet accrued.  While it is true
that a claim accrues only when the plaintiff "knows or should have
known of both the what and who elements of causation," the Judge
finds it clear that NaturMed had sufficient knowledge; its
counterclaims in the Arizona action specifically alleged that
Bactolac had failed to blend ADEG "in a commercially reasonable and
safe manner free of negligence and/or misconduct."

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Block granted Bactolac's motion to
dismiss with respect to claims III, IX, XIX, XXIX, XXXII and XXXVI,
and otherwise denied.  In addition, he dismissed claims VI, VII,
VIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVIII, XXII, XIV, XXV, XXVII, XXXIII and XXXIV
pursuant to the Plaintiffs' withdrawal of those claims.
Accordingly, claims I, V, X, XI, XII, XIII, XVII, XX, XXI, XXIII,
XXVI, XXVIII, XXX, XXXI and XXXV will proceed.

The Judge denied Bactolac's motion to strike the Plaintiffs'
request for punitive damages.

Finally, he granted Bactolac's motion for judgment on the pleadings
with respect to NaturMed's cross-claims for fraud and negligence,
and denied with respect to the cross-claims for breach of contract,
breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty.  Those
cross-claims, in addition to the cross-claim for contractual
indemnity, will proceed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 10, 2021 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/vatv82k5 from Leagle.com.

JAMES J. BILSBORROW -- jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com -- PETER SAMBERG,
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., in New York City, for the Plaintiffs.

HOWARD A. FRIED, WALTER H. SWAYZE III --
Pete.Swayze@lewisbrisbois.com -- CAMERON W. BROWN, Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, in New York City, for the Bactolac.

SHEILA CARMODY -- scarmody@swlaw.com -- COURTNEY HENSON --
chenson@swlaw.com -- Snell and Wilmer L.L.P., in Phoenix, Arizona.

KAREN CAMPBELL -- Karen.Campbell@lewisbrisbois.com -- JOHN A.
ANSELMO -- John.Anselmo@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois, in New
York City, for Defendant NaturMed.


BAHN THAI: Faces Arneson Employment Suit in California State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bahn Thai, Inc. The
case is captioned as Courtenay Arneson vs. Bahn Thai, Inc., Case
No. 34-2021-00295429-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb.
26, 2021).

The suit arises from employment-related issues.

Bahn Thai is a restaurant serving Thai cuisine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
          ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
          3990 Old Town Ave, Ste C204
          San Diego, CA 92110-2933
          Telephone: (619) 255-9047
          Facsimile: (858) 404-9203
          E-mail: shani@zakaylaw.com

BAKER HUGHES: Continues to Defend Consolidated Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend the consolidated class action suit by Tri-State Joint
Fund and City of Providence.

On August 13, 2019, Tri-State Joint Fund filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery, a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on
the behalf of itself and all similarly situated public stockholders
of Baker Hughes Incorporated ("BHI") against the General Electric
Company (GE), the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI,
and certain former BHI Officers alleging breaches of fiduciary
duty, aiding and abetting, and other claims in connection with the
combination of BHI and the oil and gas business (GE O&G) of GE (the
Transactions).

On October 28, 2019, the City of Providence filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on
behalf of itself and all similarly situated public shareholders of
BHI against GE, the former members of the Board of Directors of
BHI, and certain former BHI Officers alleging substantially the
same claims in connection with the Transactions.

The relief sought in these complaints include a request for a
declaration that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, an
award of damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The lawsuits have been consolidated, and plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint on December 17, 2019 against
certain former BHI officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and
against GE for aiding and abetting those breaches. The December
2019 complaint omitted the former members of the Board of Directors
of BHI, except for Mr. Martin Craighead who also served as
President and CEO of BHI. Mr. Craighead and Ms. Ross, who served as
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of BHI, remain
named in the December 2019 complaint along with GE.

The relief sought in the consolidated complaint includes a
declaration that the former BHI officers breached their fiduciary
duties and that GE aided and abetted those breaches, an award of
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On or around February 12, 2020, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the complaint failed to
state a claim on which relief could be granted.

On or around October 27, 2020, the Chancery Court granted GE's
motion to dismiss, and granted in part the motion to dismiss filed
by Mr. Craighead and Ms. Ross, thereby dismissing all of the claims
against GE and Ms. Ross, and all but one of the claims against Mr.
Craighead.

Baker Hughes said "At this time, we are not able to predict the
outcome of the remaining claim."

Baker Hughes Company provides oilfield products and services. The
Company engages in surface logging, drilling, pipeline operations,
petroleum engineering, and fertilizer solutions, as well as offers
gas turbines, valves, actuators, pumps, flow meters, generators,
and motors. Baker Hughes serves oil and gas industries worldwide.
The company is based in Houston, Texas.

BANK OF AMERICA: Unlawfully Collects ACH Transfer Fees, Bruin Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TAMI BRUIN and ELINE BAROKAS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02272 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and
violations of the North Carolina Consumer Protection Law, the New
York General Business Law, and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's deceptive practice of
misleading accountholders into paying Automated Clearing House
(ACH) transfer fees. The Defendant allegedly uses its superior
knowledge about the National Automated Clearinghouse (NACHA) to
extract fee income from its accountholders when they could have
transfer money using the NACHA system for free.

Bank of America, N.A. is a national bank with its headquarters and
principal place of business located in Charlotte, North Carolina.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         Andrew Shamis, Esq.
         SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
         14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
         Miami, FL 33132
         Telephone: (305) 479-2299
         E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

                - and –

         Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
         Christopher Gold, Esq.
         EDELSBERG LAW
         20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
         Aventura, FL 33180
         Telephone: (786) 289-9471
         E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                 chris@edelsberglaw.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Wells, BofA & Capital Dismissed From Anderjaska
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN ANDERJASKA, CHUNGYAO CHEN, TEENA COLEBROOK, JOEL
GRIFFITH, ART HEINEMAN, CALVIN WILLIAMS, CHARLES WITTE, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BANK
OF AMERICA, N.A., CAPITAL ONE, N.A., CITIBANK, N.A., J.P. MORGAN
CHASE, N.A., WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-CV-3057-LTS-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
three motions to dismiss the complaint.

The three motions were brought by Defendants Wells Fargo, Bank of
America, and Capital One, each pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(2), to dismiss the Complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

The named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, bring the putative class action against the
Defendants, asserting claims of negligence, aiding and abetting,
and fraudulent concealment pursuant to New York State common law
and Article 9 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules that
arise from payment processing services in connection with an
allegedly fraudulent investment scheme.

In February 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County,
asserting causes of action for negligence, aiding and abetting, and
fraudulent concealment, arising out of a "fraudulent binary options
scheme" involving various intermediary payment processors and
internet-based binary options trading platforms, all of which
allegedly operate illegally and out of compliance with U.S.
securities regulations.

Starting as early as 2015, the Plaintiffs made credit card, debit
card and/or wire transactions in their accounts with the Defendants
to make deposits or payments to the aforementioned fraudulent
platforms in order to purchase binary options.  When they later had
trouble withdrawing funds from their accounts with the allegedly
fraudulent binary options platforms, they attempted to initiate
"chargeback" transactions with the Defendants, based on fraudulent
activity by the platforms, which the Defendants refused, leading
the Plaintiffs to file the action.

Now before the Court are three motions, brought by Defendants Wells
Fargo, Bank of America, and Capital One, respectively, each
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), to dismiss
the Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.   The Defendants

Judge Swain holds that the Plaintiffs have not met their "heavy
burden" of showing that Wells Fargo's, Bank of America's, or
Capital One's contacts in New York are so extensive so as to
constitute an "exceptional case."  The Plaintiffs note that each
bank has a substantial number of physical banking locations and
ATMs, a large office space, and a large workforce in New York, but
generally fail to compare those figures to each bank's national or
global presence, as required under Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S.
117, 137-39 & n.19 (2014).  They provide the required context for a
limited number of sectors in which the moving Defendants do have a
comparatively large New York presence, but those showings fall well
short of reflecting the type of "exceptional case" at issue in
Perkins.

So too does their reference to a Feb. 26, 2020, article from
American Banker, reflecting that Wells Fargo's CEO Charlie Scharf
is based in New York, given that CEO Scharf is also quoted
downplaying the importance of his base in New York in the context
of Wells Fargo's national presence.

Finally, the Plaintiffs rely on statements in certain of the
Defendants' Securities and Exchange Commission filings that, for
example, some of the Defendants' stock certificates are subject to
governance by "what the banking institutions in New York, New York
are doing."  The Judge holds that while these statements may
support the Plaintiffs' assertion that "New York is the nation's
financial capital," they do not support a conclusion that each
Defendant is "essentially at home" in New York so as to subject it
to general jurisdiction.

Having considered the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs in
support of their argument that Defendants Wells Fargo, Bank of
America, and Capital One are essentially at home in New York, the
Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs have not met their heavy burden
of showing that their case against any of those Defendants is an
"exceptional case" as contemplated by Daimler, and thus concludes
that the Court lacks general jurisdiction over those Defendants.

Having concluded that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over
Defendants Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Capital One, Judge
Swain must decide the appropriate remedy.  Wells Fargo and Bank of
America seek dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims as against them.
Capital One also seeks dismissal or, if the Court declines to
dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, severance and
transfer of the Plaintiffs' claims against Capital One to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (where
jurisdiction is conceded) under 28 U.S.C. section 1404(a).

The Plaintiffs oppose Capital One's request for transfer, and have
not sought transfer as an alternative to dismissal as against
either of the other Defendants.

Accordingly, the Complaint will be dismissed as against the moving
Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Memorandum Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4txcnzbp from Leagle.com.


BARBIZON SCHOOL: Deprives All Wages Earned by Directors, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY GONZALEZ and MADISON DAVIS, as individuals and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. BARBIZON SCHOOL OF SAN
FRANCISCO., INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
Case No. 21STCV08077 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 1, 2021)
is a representative action complaint seeking civil penalties under
the Private Attorneys General Act, Labor code.

The Defendants provide instruction and career support for aspiring
actors and models throughout California. The Defendants employed
the Plaintiffs as non-exempt "Admissions Directors" from October
2018 until March 15, 2020.

According to the complaint, as "Admissions Directors," the
Plaintiffs regularly worked seven days per workweek, and their
duties included calling leads (i.e., prospective students),
scheduling appointments and conducting interviews with prospective
students, attending meetings, undergoing trainings, cleaning the
office, and otherwise providing general customer service to
students, prospective students, and customers.

The Defendants compensated the Plaintiffs pursuant to a commission
pay plan, whereby they were paid a commission based on the amounts
paid by students and/or their parents when registering for classes
or other services. Under this commission pay plan, Plaintiffs were
required to record their hours worked by clocking in and clocking
out at the beginning and end of their shift through an application
on their smart phones called "t-sheets." However, Plaintiffs were
only paid an hourly minimum wage if their commissions did not
exceed their minimum wage floor for the pay period, the suit says.


The Plaintiff contends that because the Defendants' pay system is
simply a subterfuge for a commission compensation system, on those
occasions when Plaintiffs and other non-exempt employees were paid
only based on commissions (i.e., when their commissions exceeded
the minimum wage floor), the Plaintiffs and other non-exempt
employees were not separately compensated for time spent working on
tasks that were not compensated on a commission basis (i.e.,
non-productive time), including hours spent attending weekly
meetings, undergoing training, traveling to alternative locations
for talent searches, cleaning the office, and/or otherwise
providing customer service to current students and other customers.


As a result of Defendants' alleged failure to compensate Plaintiffs
and other non-exempt employees for non-productive time, he
Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs and other non-exempt
employees for all wages earned 25 in violation of California law,
which requires employers to pay piece rate and commission 26
workers separately for all nonproductive time.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          Alexandra R. McIntosh, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
                  amcintosh@haineslawgroup.com


BBVA USA: Chattopadhyay Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the plaintiff in
the putative class action suit entitled, Amitahbo Chattopadhyay v.
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc., et al., have pursed to appeal the order
of dismissal.

In March 2019, the Company and its subsidiary, Simple Finance
Technology Corp., were named as defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Amitahbo Chattopadhyay v. BBVA USA
Bancshares, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff claims that Simple and the Company only permit United
States citizens to open Simple accounts (which are exclusively
originated through online channels). Plaintiff later amended the
complaint to also take issue with BBVA USA's practice of directing
non-citizen applicants to complete the online account origination
processes in a physical branch location.

Plaintiff alleges that these practices constitute alienage
discrimination and violations of California's Unruh Act. BBVA USA's
motion to dismiss was granted on November 2, 2020 and the
plaintiffs are pursuing an appeal of that ruling.

The Company believes that there are substantial defenses to these
claims and intends to defend them vigorously.

BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. (the Parent) is a financial holding
company that conducts its business operations primarily through its
commercial banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama
banking corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The
Parent was organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April,
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was
moving to unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding,
the Bank will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name
and be re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective
June 10, 2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to
change its legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc.

The Parent is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.

BBVA USA: Continues to Defend Ferguson Class Action in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Ferguson v. BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc.

In July 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama, Ferguson v. BBVA USA Bancshares,
Inc., wherein the plaintiffs allege certain investment options
within the Company's employee retirement plan violate provisions of
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims
and intends to defend them vigorously.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. (the Parent) is a financial holding
company that conducts its business operations primarily through its
commercial banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama
banking corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The
Parent was organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April,
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was
moving to unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding,
the Bank will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name
and be re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective
June 10, 2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to
change its legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc.

The Parent is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.


BBVA USA: St. Lucie Firefighters Pension Trust Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that BBVA Securities
Inc. (BSI) continues to defend a putative class action suit
entitled, St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters'
PensionTrust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Southwestern Energy Company, et al.

In October 2016, BSI was named as a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas,
St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Southwestern Energy Company, et al., wherein the plaintiffs allege
that Southwestern Energy Company, its officers and directors, and
the underwriting defendants (including BSI) made inaccurate and
misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus
related to a securities offering.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief. The Company
believes there are substantial defenses to these claims and intends
to defend them vigorously.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. (the Parent) is a financial holding
company that conducts its business operations primarily through its
commercial banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama
banking corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The
Parent was organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April,
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was
moving to unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding,
the Bank will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name
and be re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective
June 10, 2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to
change its legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc.

The Parent is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.

BBVA USA: Zamora-Orduna Realty Suit Over PPP Loan Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled,
Zamora-Orduna Realty Group LLC v. BBVA USA.

In April 2020, the Bank was named in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the District Court of Bexar County, Texas styled
Zamora-Orduna Realty Group LLC v. BBVA USA, wherein plaintiffs
allege the Bank tortiously failed to process certain loan requests
submitted in connection with the federal Paycheck Protection
Program (PPP).

The plaintiffs seek an amount not less than $10 million along with
other demands for unspecified monetary relief.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims
and intends to defend them vigorously.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. (the Parent) is a financial holding
company that conducts its business operations primarily through its
commercial banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama
banking corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The
Parent was organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April,
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was
moving to unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding,
the Bank will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name
and be re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective
June 10, 2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to
change its legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc.

The Parent is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.

BELLUS HEALTH: Faces Cachia Suit Over 75% Drop in Stock Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARL D. CACHIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BELLUS HEALTH INC., ROBERTO BELLINI, and
FRANCOIS DESJARDIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02278 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading misrepresentations and omissions about its drug,
BLU-5937, in order to artificially inflate prices of BELLUS
securities between September 5, 2019 and July 5, 2020. During the
Class period, the Defendants were well aware that Merck & Co. was
ahead of BELLUS in the clinical path towards obtaining Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) approval, but assured investors that the
company's drug, BLU-5937, would come with a better safety profile
as it was highly selective and thus would not have the side effects
of taste alteration or loss of taste which were reported in 80% of
patients on Merck's Gefapixant. As a result, investors were misled
into believing that the Phase 2 study for BELLUS's BLU-5937 would
demonstrate the same level of efficacy as, but a higher level of
safety than, Gefapixant, the suit alleges.

When the truth emerged that BELLUS had fallen behind Merck in
developing an FDA-approved treatment for refractory chronic cough,
the company's stock price plummeted over 75% to close at $2.97 on
July 8, 2020 on heavy trading volume.

BELLUS Health Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
headquartered in Laval, Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Constantine P. Economides, Esq.
         Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq.
         Ivy T. Ngo, Esq.
         ROCHE FREEDMAN LLP
         200 South Biscayne Boulevard
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (305) 971-5943
         Facsimile: (646) 392-8842
         E-mail: ceconomides@rcfllp.com
                 vel@rcfllp.com
                 ingo@rcfllp.com

                - and –

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (424) 303-1964
         E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com

BEST BUY: Portillo Sues Over Harassment, Wrongful Termination
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS PORTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEST BUY STORES, L.P.; MAGNOLIA HI-FI, LLC;
JASON ROBLES; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 21STCV10356 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 17, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code, Public Policy, and the Fair Employment and
Housing Act including wrongful termination, retaliation,
harassment, failure to prevent harassment, intentional infliction
of emotional distress, disability discrimination, failure to
provide reasonable accommodation, and civil penalties.

The Plaintiff was transferred and promoted as specialty sales
manager at the Pasadena Best Buy location in California in or
around March 2018.

Best Buy Stores, L.P. is a retail company located in Richfield,
Minnesota.

Magnolia Hi-Fi, LLC is a retailer of consumer electronics and
appliances located in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Michael C. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
         Orion S. Robinson, Esq.
         Michael B. Yee, Esq.
         ROBINSON DI LANDO
         A Professional Law Corporation
         801 South Grand Avenue, Suite 500
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Telephone: (213) 229-0100
         Facsimile: (213) 229-0114
         E-mail: mrobinson@rdwlaw.com
                 orobinson@rdwlaw.com
                 myee@rdwlaw.com

BEYOND MEAT: Massaro TCPA Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in Facebook
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NAZRIN MASSARO, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEYOND MEAT, INC., and PEOPLE FOR
THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-00510-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
granted PETA's motion to stay the litigation pending the United
States Supreme Court's decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid.

The case is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq., ("TCPA").  Beyond
Meat is a publicly traded company that develops and sells
alternative animal food products made from protein isolate, rice
and bean proteins, and other various plant extracts.  The Plaintiff
alleges Beyond Meat entered into a corporate partnership agreement
and/or arrangement pursuant to which Defendant PETA, a non-profit
animal rights organization, agreed to promote and provide marketing
benefits to Beyond Meat in exchange for monetary contributions from
Beyond Meat.

On Jan. 17, 2020, pursuant to an alleged partnership with Beyond
Meat, PETA sent marketing text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in 9991.  The Plaintiff's core allegation
is that PETA sent her a text message via an ATDS without sufficient
prior express written consent in violation of the TCPA.

The Plaintiff maintains at no point in time did she provide Beyond
Meat or PETA with express written consent to be contacted with
automated advertising text messages.  She maintains she only
provided express consent to PETA for the purposes of receiving
informational non-advertising text messages.  Furthermore, she
contends, "the generic nature of the subject text messages
demonstrates that Defendant PETA utilized an ATDS in transmitting
the messages."

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of all
individuals who received a similar message and seeks statutory
penalties of $500 per message received by each putative class
member of her alleged nationwide class.

Before the Court are several motions: (1) Defendant PETA's motion
to stay pending the FCC's definition of an ATDS; (2) PETA's motion
to dismiss or strike the Plaintiff's nationwide class claims; (3)
PETA's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
("FAC") for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Article III
of the U.S. Constitution, or alternatively, for failure to state a
claim; (4) dismissed Defendant Beyond Meat's motion to dismiss, or
in the alternative, stay proceedings; (5) PETA's motion to stay
pending the Supreme Court's decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid;
and (6) PETA's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Barr v.
AAPC.  The Plaintiff opposed each motion.

The United States of America intervened in the action to defend the
constitutionality of the TCPA against assertions that the "robocall
restriction" provision, 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii),
violates the First Amendment, on its face and as applied.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, Judge Battaglia finds the
instant matter suitable for determination on the papers and without
oral argument.  As such, he vacates the March 25, 2021 hearing on
PETA's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Judge Battaglia first addresses PETA's motions involving the
Court's jurisdiction to hear the case.  Concluding that the Court
has jurisdiction, he turns to whether the nationwide class claims
may be properly dismissed at this stage.  Lastly, he determines
whether a stay is warranted.

PETA's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing

First, PETA moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure2 12(b)(1)
to dismiss the matter for lack of Article III standing.  For two
reasons, PETA argues the Plaintiff cannot show an actual
injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing.  First,
the single text message was not sent for a marketing purpose and
did not invade the Plaintiff's privacy sufficient to cause actual
injury.  Second, because the Plaintiff consented to the text
message, it was not unsolicited and could not have invaded her
privacy, at least not sufficient for Article III standing.  As the
second grounds for its motion, PETA argues the Plaintiff cannot
prove actual injury-in-fact based on the receipt of a text message
that she consented to receive.

Judge Battaglia finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged
standing by the assertion that she received a telemarketing text
message without her express written consent, in violation of the
TCPA.  First, regardless of whether PETA's text message to the
Plaintiff qualified as a single text message or two separate text
messages, the Ninth Circuit's decision in Van Patten v. Vertical
Fitness Grp., 847 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2017), forecloses PETA's
argument that a single text message may not constitute a TCPA
violation.  Second, the Court cannot resolve PETA's attack on the
Court's jurisdiction without also deciding the merits of the
Plaintiff's TCPA claim.  This is a key factual dispute going to the
merits and not appropriate for resolution as a standing question.
Hence, PETA's motion to dismiss based on this ground is denied.

PETA's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

PETA next argues that should the Court decline to dismiss this
action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court should
nevertheless dismiss the FAC for failing to state a claim under
Rule 12(b)(6).  PETA appears to argue there is a blanket exemption
for non-profit organizations, while the Plaintiff contends PETA's
text messaging campaign amounts to a commercial advertising
endeavor masquerading as charitable communication.  The issue
therefore turns on whether PETA is shielded from liability
regardless of the content of the allegedly offending text message.
On the one hand, PETA's text message notifying recipients of the
availability of a meat alternative product at a certain restaurant
is certainly related to PETA's mission of encouraging a vegan diet.
But equally compelling is the argument that the text message was
sent to encourage the purchase of a for-profit corporation's
product.

Judge Battaglia finds the non-profit exemption inapplicable to PETA
at the motion to dismiss stage.  Construing the facts alleged in
the Complaint as true, and viewing them in a light most favorable
to the Plaintiff, he says it appears the subject text messages was
made with dual commercial and non-commercial purpose.  The
Plaintiff's allegations provide that PETA, as a nonprofit, was
acting as a conduit for Beyond Meat in advertising the availability
of the alternative meat product at a certain restaurant.  This
conclusion also comports with the FCC's concern that the non-profit
exemption may serve as an end-run around the prior express written
consent requirement, particularly in cases where the subject texts
or calls contain a commercial message.

Accordingly, while it is possible that further litigation will
reveal that the subject text message was not sent with a commercial
purpose, for now, PETA's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based on
the non-profit exemption is denied.

PETA's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Based On
Constitutionality

Next, PETA moves to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction
based on two grounds.  First, PETA argues the United States Supreme
Court recently held in AAPC v. FCC that a relevant provision of the
TCPA was unconstitutional during the time Plaintiff received the
at-issue text messages.  Second, PETA challenges the application of
the TCPA as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

In response, the Plaintiff characterizes PETA's argument as an
attempt to "ride a discrete constitutional flaw in [the TCPA] to
take down the whole, otherwise constitutional statute."  The United
States of America also intervened to defend the constitutionality
of the TCPA.

Judge Battaglia denied PETA's motion to dismiss based on either the
Supreme Court's decision in AAPC or its challenge to the
application of the TCPA as unconstitutional.  He holds that the
Court must heed the conclusion of the seven Justices in agreement
that the government-debt exception should be severed, leaving the
remaining portions of the TCPA, including the robocall restriction
undisturbed.  The Court also joins several other district courts
within the Ninth Circuit in holding that AAPC did not divest
federal courts of jurisdiction over TCPA claims concerning
robocalls made between 2015 and the date of AAPC's issuance.
Lastly, the Judge holds that the validity of the FCC's
interpretation of "prior express consent" in its regulations may
not be challenged in this Court, and must be presumed valid at this
time.

PETA's Motion to Dismiss or Strike Plaintiff's Nationwide Class
Claims for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

In its next motion, PETA argues this Court should dismiss or strike
the Plaintiff's nationwide class claims for lack of personal
jurisdiction.  PETA's argument is two-fold.  First, a nationwide
class action against PETA is improper because the Court does not
have general jurisdiction over PETA.  Second, PETA argues based on
Bristol-Myers, the Court lacks specific jurisdiction over the
non-California class claims.

In recognizing the district court divide, Judge Battaglia joins
with the majority of courts in taking the position that
Bristol-Myers does not apply to federal class actions.  Two reasons
drive his conclusion.  First, the Supreme Court in Bristol-Myers
expressly acknowledged, but left open, the question of whether its
holding even extended to federal courts.  Second, he declines to
extend Bristol-Myers to the present litigation because this case
does not involve a mass tort action with consolidated individual
suits.  Therefore, the Judge declines to apply apply Bristol-Myers
in the case.  PETA's motion to dismiss or strike the nationwide
class claims is denied.

PETA's Motion to Stay Pending the FCC's Definition of an ATDS

PETA has filed two separate motions to stay pending (1) the FCC's
clarification of an ATDS, and (2) the Supreme Court's decision in
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid.  PETA argues the case should be stayed
while the FCC considers promulgating regulations further defining
an ATDS.

Judge Battaglia declines to exercise the Court's inherent powers in
staying this case pending further direction from the FCC.  First,
he says there is no imminent deadline as to when or whether the FCC
will promulgate such regulations.  Therefore, the requested stay
could be an indefinite one, leading to a loss of evidence and the
miscarriage of justice for not only the Plaintiff, but PETA as
well.  Second, even assuming the FCC did issue a new rule, the rule
would be subject to challenge in the judicial system under the
Hobbs Act, even further demonstrating the potential for delay as
the cases work their way through the courts.  For these reasons,
the Judge concludes that a stay is not warranted.

PETA's Motion to Stay Pending the Supreme Court's Decision in
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid

Next, PETA requests a stay of the action pending the United States
Supreme Court's decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid.  In that
case, the defendant argued that it stored numbers only to be called
reflexively.  The messages were sent when there appeared to be
unauthorized activity on an individual's Facebook account.  The
Court found no difference between calls made actively and those
made reflexively.

On July 2, 2020, the Supreme Court granted Facebook's petition for
certiorari in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, scheduling oral argument
for Dec. 8, 2020.  In doing so, the Supreme Court agreed to decide
the following question: whether the definition of ATDS in the TCPA
encompasses any device that can "store" and "automatically dial"
telephone numbers, even if the device does not "use a random or
sequential number generator."  The Supreme Court is likely to issue
an opinion on this question in the first half of 2021, which should
resolve the circuit split and provide a uniform definition of an
ATDS.

Based on the foregoing, a stay pending an opinion from the Supreme
Court is warranted, Judge Battaglia holds.  First, stay would only
minimally delay discovery.  Second, PETA's interest in avoiding
potentially unnecessary litigation and discovery is consistent with
the Court's interest in preserving judicial resources and
efficiency.  Third, stay will simplify the issues in the case.
Therefore, after weighing the competing interests, the Judge
concludes that a stay is warranted pending the Supreme Court's
resolution of Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid.  Additionally, he declines
the Plaintiff's request to allow class discovery during the stay.
Judicial efficiency is best promoted by the simplification of
issues before discovery.  The motion is granted.

In sum, Judge Battaglia (1) denied PETA's motion to stay pending
the FCC's definition of an ATDS; (2) denied PETA's motion to
dismiss or strike Plaintiff's nationwide class claims; (3) denied
PETA's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under Article III, or alternatively, for failure to state a claim;
(4) denied as moot Defendant Beyond Meat's motion to dismiss, or in
the alternative, stay proceedings; (5) denied PETA's motion to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the
Supreme Court's decision in Barr v. AAPC; and (6) granted PETA's
motion to stay pending the Supreme Court's decision in Facebook,
Inc. v. Duguid.

The Judge vacated the March 25, 2021 hearing on PETA's motion to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The parties are
ordered to file a notice with the Court when the Supreme Court
issues its ruling, or otherwise disposes of Facebook, Inc. v.
Duguid.  The notice is to include a request for a Case Management
Conference.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/uea32cm3 from Leagle.com.


BIT DIGITAL: Nitcheu Sues Over Decline in Stock Market Price
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Franklin Monkam Nitcheu, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BIT DIGITAL, INC., MIN HU, and ERKE
HUANG, Case No. 1:21-cv-02262 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2021), is
brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Bit Digital, Inc. securities between December 21, 2020 and
January 11, 2021, inclusive, for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as a result of the Defendants materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and the decline in stock market price.

At approximately 2:00 p.m. Eastern on January 11, 2021, analyst J
Capital Research issued a research report alleging, among other
things, that Bit Digital operates "a fake crypto currency business"
"designed to steal funds from investors." Though the Company claims
"it was operating 22,869 bitcoin miners in China," J Capital wrote
that this "is simply not possible" and stated that "we verified
with local governments supposedly hosting the BTBT mining operation
that there are no bitcoin miners there." On this news, Bit
Digital's stock price fell $6.27 per share, or 25%, to close at
$18.76 per share on January 11, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
Bit Digital overstated the extent of its a bitcoin mining
operation; and (2) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis..

The Plaintiff acquired and held shares of Bit Digital at
artificially inflated prices during the class period.

Bit Digital is a holding company that purports to engage in the
bitcoin mining business through its wholly owned subsidiaries in
U.S. and Hong Kong.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 398-5600
          Fax: (617) 507-6020
          Email: jeff@blockleviton.com
                 steti@blockleviton.com


BLUEBIRD BIO: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of April 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming April 13, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired bluebird bio, Inc. ("bluebird" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: BLUE) securities between May 11, 2020 and November 4,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your bluebird investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/bluebird-bio-inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

In May 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, bluebird
announced that the Company expected to submit a U.S. Biologics
Licensing Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") for LentiGlobin for sickle cell disease in
the second half of 2021.

On November 4, 2020, post-market, bluebird disclosed that it would
delay its BLA submission to late 2022 due to "feedback" from the
FDA that requires the Company to provide additional data "to
demonstrate drug product comparability" for LentiGlobin for sickle
cell disease, as well as "COVID-19 related shifts and contract
manufacturing organization COVID-19 impacts."

On this news, bluebird's stock price fell $9.72 per share, or
16.6%, to close at $48.83 per share on November 5, 2020.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) data supporting bluebird's BLA submission for LentiGlobin
for SCD was insufficient to demonstrate drug product comparability;
(2) Defendants downplayed the foreseeable impact of disruptions
related to the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company's BLA submission
schedule for LentiGlobin for SCD, particularly with respect to
manufacturing; (3) as a result of all the foregoing, it was
foreseeable that the Company would not submit the BLA for
LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half of 2021; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired bluebird securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 13,
2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]


BLUEBIRD BIO: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 13 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on March 2 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York against bluebird bio, Inc. ("bluebird" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: BLUE) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired bluebird
securities between May 11, 2020 and November 4, 2020, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").

All investors who purchased shares of bluebird bio, Inc. and
incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of bluebird bio, Inc.,
you may, no later than April 13, 2021, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.   Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
the shares of bluebird bio, Inc.

The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, and
failed to disclose to investors that:

   * data supporting bluebird's BLA submission for LentiGlobin for
SCD was insufficient to demonstrate drug product comparability;

   * Defendants downplayed the foreseeable impact of disruptions
related to the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company's BLA submission
schedule for LentiGlobin for SCD, particularly with respect to
manufacturing;

   * as a result of all the foregoing, it was foreseeable that the
Company would not submit the BLA for LentiGlobin for SCD in the
second half of 2021; and

   * as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

The price of Company shares dropped as much as 35% on
February 16, 2020 intraday after the company announced the
suspension of its Phase 1/2 and Phase 3 studies of its sickle cell
therapy candidate.

The company suspended the studies due to a reported Suspected
Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction (SUSAR) of acute myeloid
leukemia (AML). Bluebird placed the study on hold after receiving a
report that a patient who was treated more than five years ago in a
study was diagnosed with AML.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]


BOOK VIP: Andrews et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES ANDREWS and CARMEN ANDREWS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOOK VIP MARKETING INC.,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case
No. 5:21-cv-00411 (C.D. Cal., March 8, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged negligent
and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs received numerous
solicitation calls from the Defendant on their respective cellular
telephone numbers that have been registered on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry. The purpose of the Defendant's calls was to
solicit the Plaintiffs to purchase its services. Allegedly, the
Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) in
placing its calls without obtaining the Plaintiffs' "prior express
consent" to receive such calls using an ATDS or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on their respective cellular telephone numbers.
Moreover, the Defendant intentionally recorded their calls with the
Plaintiffs through the use of an electronic device without having
first obtaining their consent to be recorded or otherwise notifying
them that the call was being recorded.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unsolicited calls, the
Plaintiffs have been harmed by causing the to incur certain charges
or reduced telephone time for which they had previously paid, and
by invading their privacy. Thus, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs seek statutory and treble
damages, an injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant from
unilaterally recording telephone conversations without the consent
from the other party, as well as pre-judgment interest at the legal
rate, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the
Court deems necessary, just, and proper.

Book VIP Marketing, Inc. sells and markets vacations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Tel: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Mesh Implants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Doraisamy, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that
proceedings have been launched on behalf of women who have suffered
"debilitating injuries" caused by mesh implants that "were not of
merchantable quality and did not have an acceptable quality".

AJB Stevens Lawyers, based in Sydney, has filed Representative
Proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW against Boston Scientific
Corporation and Boston Scientific Pty Ltd, on behalf of women who
are alleging injury as a result of mesh implants distributed by the
defendant.

The firm is arguing, it noted in a statement, that Boston
Scientific "breached Australian Consumer Laws by marketing,
promoting and distributing medical devices, and did not undertake
adequate clinical and/or evaluation of the risks and the
effectiveness, including long-term risks and long-term
effectiveness, associated with the use of their implants".

The class is claiming damages based on harm suffered from the
devices after having one or more Boston Scientific implants.

The launching of these proceedings follows the return to the
Federal Court of the mesh implants class action against the
manufacturers and distributors behind Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon,
Inc. and Ethicon Sarl, which are seeking to overturn a landmark
decision from November 2019.

The claim will be pursued, AJB Stevens espoused, on the basis that
Boston Scientific owed a duty of care to patients inserted with
implants distributed by Boston Scientific, and that they breached
that duty, causing harm to patients.

Moreover, the firm is alleging that Boston Scientific "failed to
give any, or any sufficient, information or warning to treating
hospitals and treating implanting surgeons, regarding the risks and
implant complications".

"We say the medical implants did not offer sufficient warning,
advice or information and ultimately, the medical implants were not
fit for purpose," the firm posited.

"The medical implants were not of merchantable quality and did not
have an acceptable quality when being distributed."

Boston Scientific and/or the supplier of the medical implants, AJB
Stevens continued, "knew or ought to have known that there were not
insignificant risks of harm to these affected women and that they
would ultimately suffer implant complications by reason of these
compromised and defective implants".

The affected women, the firm submitted, "had a perfectly good
reason and expectation to be informed of the deficiency of the
implant, or at least be warned of matters which would otherwise
imply that the implants were not fit for purpose or of merchantable
quality within the meaning of the Australian laws".

In December 2019, Shine Lawyers practice leader Rebecca Jancauskas
spoke on The Lawyers Weekly Show about running the aforementioned
class action, the implications of the judgement outcome on how
product claims will be determined in Australia moving forward, the
strategies firms can use to advertise to prospective class action
claimants, and her personal journey of running such an involved
trial while adjusting to being a mother for the first time. [GN]


BQ OPERATIONS: Brown Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JASMINE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BQ OPERATIONS HOLDING, LLC; SUNBRIDGE
HALLMARK HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, doing business in California as
Playa del Rey Center; FOUNTAIN VIEW SUBACUTE AND NURSING CENTER,
LLC, doing business in California as Fountain View Subacute and
Nsg; GENESIS HEALTHCARE; GENESIS HEALTHCARE, INC.; GHC PAYROLL,
LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV04069, was removed
from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on March 15, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-02293 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest
breaks, failure to indemnify, wage statement penalties, and unfair
business practices.

BQ Operations Holding, LLC is a company that manages nursing
facilities in Pennsylvania.

Sunbridge Hallmark Health Services, LLC, doing business as Playa
del Rey Center, is a provider of nursing care facility in
California.

Fountain View Subacute and Nursing Center, LLC, doing business as
Fountain View Subacute and Nsg, is a nursing home in Los Angeles,
California.

Genesis HealthCare, Inc. is a provider of short-term post-acute,
rehabilitation, skilled nursing and long-term care services in
Pennsylvania.

GHC Payroll, LLC is a provider of payroll services in Kennett
Square, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Curtis A. Graham, Esq.
         Alexandria M. Witte, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 443-4300
         Facsimile: (213) 443-4299

BROKER SOLUTIONS: Faces Vargas Suit Over Unlawful Credit Reporting
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LATISHA VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROKER SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a NEW
AMERICAN FUNDING, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
8:21-cv-00427 (C.D. Cal., March 8, 2021) challenges the Defendant's
alleged unlawful conduct that violated the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, the
California's Unfair Competition Law, and the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff applied for a loan
modification on or about January 2020 which was approved by the
Defendant for a Trial Payment Plan with a modified monthly payment
to modify the Plaintiff's existing mortgage. As part of the Trial
Payment Plan, the Plaintiff made the modified payments which were
less than her previous mortgage payments from February through
April 2020. Subsequently on April 24, 2020, the Plaintiff received
a letter from the Defendant acknowledging her completion of the
Trial Payment Plan and noting that her modification would be
effective May 1, 2020 under the new agreed to terms. However, the
Defendant unlawfully reported his account as delinquent to several
credit reporting agencies although he timely made all requisite
payments in compliance with the Trial Period Plan and was not
delinquent on her account with the Defendant, the suit says.

The Plaintiff submitted a dispute to those reporting agencies on or
about June 2020 regarding the Defendant's unfair credit reporting
of her mortgage. Despite the dispute, the Defendant allegedly
verified the false information and continued to furnish false
information to the credit reporting agencies, failed to perform a
reasonable reinvestigation of the Plaintiff's dispute and account
history to discover its errors, and has been providing derogatory
and inaccurate statements and information relating to Plaintiff and
his credit history to various credit reporting agencies.

As a result of the Defendant's inaccurate reporting of the
Plaintiff's accounts, the Plaintiff has suffered actual damages,
including the fact that the Plaintiff's application for a credit
card has been denied. The Plaintiff suffered and continues to
suffer injury to the plaintiff's feelings, personal humiliation,
embarrassment, mental anguish and emotional distress, the suit
adds.

Broker Solutions, Inc. d/b/a New American Funding provides
information to consumer credit reporting agencies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Tel: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


BUCK KNIVES: Houriani Sues Over Deceptive Sales of Hunting Knives
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RODNEY HOURIANI, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. BUCK KNIVES, INC., a Nevada
Corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-01908 (C.D. Calif., March 1, 2021),
arises from the Defendant's advertisement and sale of hunting knife
and sheath combinations represented as being entirely or
substantially made in the U.S.A. (the "Product") to Houriani and a
large class of individuals when, in fact, the Product is not
entirely or substantially made in the U.S.A.

The Plaintiff brings claims under the California Consumers Legal
Remedy Act, the California False Advertising Laws, the California
Unfair Competition Laws, and the Lanham Act against the Defendant.

According to the complaint, Mr. Houriani, on his own behalf and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, has notified the Defendant
of its unlawful and deceptive marketing and sales practices and
demanded that the Defendant (a) cease and desist from further
deceptive marketing and sales practices with respect to the
Product; and give notice to and offer reimbursement to all
consumers who purchased the Product. The Defendant continues its
unlawful and deceptive practices unabated and has provided no
remedy to Houriani or the Class.

Buck Knives is an American knife manufacturer founded in Mountain
Home, Idaho and now located in Post Falls, Idaho. The company has a
long history through five generations of the Buck family from 1902
to the present day.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Greifinger, Esq.
          Calvin A. Marshall, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID R. GREIFINGER
          15515 W. Sunset Boulevard, Unit 214
          Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
          Telephone: (424) 330-0193
          Facsimile: (831) 920-4864
          E-mail: tracklaw@me.com
                  calvin@greifingerlaw.com

               - and -

          John A. Marshall, Esq.
          MARSHALL & ASSOCIATES
          26565 W. Agoura Road, Suite 200
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 617-9337
          E-mail: john@marshallbusinesslaw.com

BUNGIE INC: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Destiny 2 Online Game
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Oloman, writing for IGNAfrica, reports that players are
enjoying a Destiny 2 glitch that lets up to 12 people play together
in a raid.

As reported by Forbes, players can merge two teams of six in a raid
-- twice the normal maximum number of players -- by having one
fireteam join the other when the launch timer says "Launching in
0:02" during an activity's loading process. If the other fireteam
joins at just the right time, they'll both load into the same map,
and a dozen players can take on a single raid. You can see the
glitch in action in this video from YouTuber Scrub, where a crew
makes very short work of Taniks, The Abomination, the final raid
boss of Deep Stone Crypt. One player mentions how their frames per
second count tanked as a dozen players attacked a single enemy.

On Twitter, community members are referencing the chaos of this new
development. A clip from Aura shows 12 players slamming down a
rally banner at the same time, and a video from evanf1997 shows 12
players firing the exotic rifle Telestos into the floor in unison,
with the resulting effect crashing the host's game.

Guardians: *find a glitch that allows them to go in raids as a
squad of 12*

The raid enemies: pic.twitter.com/I4SppgSWDU
-- pants person strikes back (@destiny_thememe) February 27, 2021

What's perhaps most striking about the response, however, is how
many players are keen to see the glitch stay after having so much
fun with this unintended new mode. "12 man raids were the most fun
I've had in Destiny in quite sometime," said stump161, while
HunterWarlord93 wrote, "Just did a 12 man raid on Destiny 2. Most
fun experience ever. So much laughs so much joy".

Many are asking for the mode to become official, and some are
suggesting how that could be done without skewing the game's
existing balance. "This 12 man raid thing has just got me thinking
how cool it would be to have 'private' raids in @DestinyTheGame",
wrote Rob Schlick. "Up to 12 people, able to set modifiers, and no
drops (do it for fun). Let people play in these sandboxes once
they’ve been out for at least a season or two." Times_owner
suggested a more in-built, lore-based solution: "Can we actually
get 12 man raids at some point ? Would be a fun addition and have
some lore involvement showing the immense strength of a boss (e.g:
a 'world level threat' that we needed a huge amount of people to
take part because of their strength)".

@DestinyTheGame @A_dmg04 Please don’t take away 12 man raids . .
. . it’s beautiful pic.twitter.com/hsiW5trRZL

-- Z 3 R Ø (@Z_3_R0) February 28, 2021
Bungie's Senior Community Manager tweeted "Twelve what now," as the
popularity of the glitch surged. The studio clearly has its eye on
this glitch-turned-feature, but whether it will close the loophole
it or adapt it into a new mode is anyone's guess. Naturally, it
makes it easier to complete raids with double the players, so some
balancing will be in order if Bungie wants to keep it going. We've
contacted Bungie for comment.
Twelve what now

— dmg04 (@A_dmg04) February 27, 2021
In other Destiny 2 news, developer Bungie has been named as a
defendant in a class-action lawsuit, alongside Google Stadia. The
studio recently expanded its headquarters, with a facility built to
focus on creating games that aren't Destiny-related. [GN]



CAMPBELL SOUP: Baby Food Contains Toxic Metals, Chase Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD CHASE and STACEY CHASE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY and
PLUM, PBC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04650 (D.N.J., Mar. 10,
2021) seeks to stop the Defendants from manufacturing and marketing
baby food products containing unsafe levels of heavy metals and
perchlorate, or disclose the presence of these toxins in the baby
food products and the dangers posed by such contamination.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants never
disclosed the presence of toxic heavy metals or perchlorate in its
baby food products to consumers and marketed its baby food products
as "organic, non-GMO, using whole and simple ingredients."

The Defendants' deceptive marketing and warranties resulted in tens
of thousands of consumers purchasing the baby food products that
they thought were safe, nutritious and healthy, and instead were
paying a premium for baby food products that were poisoning their
children, the suit says.

Campbell Soup Company, with its subsidiaries, manufactures and
markets branded convenience food products. The Company's core
divisions include soups and sauces, biscuits and confectionery, and
foodservice. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Slater, Esq.
          Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.
          Julia S. Slater, Esq.
          MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228-0391


CAMPBELL SOUP: Baccari Sues Over Mislabeled Baby Food Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY BACCARI, JILLIAN GEFFKEN, HEATHER HYDEN, and MERCEDES JONES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, and PLUM, PBC, Defendants,
Case 1:21-cv-04749 (D.N.J., Mar. 10, 2021) alleges that the
Defendants failed to fully disclose the heavy metals or other
ingredients that do not conform to the labels, packaging, or
advertising of, or statements concerning the Defendants' baby foods
under the Plum Organics label (the "Plum Baby Foods").

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants knew
that the presence of toxic heavy metals in their baby food was a
material fact to consumers, yet omitted and concealed the unsafe
level of heavy metals from consumers. The Defendants' baby foods
containing dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals bear no label or
warning to parents, the Plaintiffs add.

Campbell Soup Company, with its subsidiaries, manufactures and
markets branded convenience food products. The Company's core
divisions include soups and sauces, biscuits and confectionery, and
foodservice. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Innessa M. Huot, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com

               -and-

          Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
          Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
          Zachary Rynar, Esq.
          SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
          184 Atlantic Street
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 325-4491
          Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
          E-mail: sbloch@sgtlaw.com
                  isloss@sgtlaw.com
                  zrynar@sgtlaw.com


CANDID CARE: Morgan Employment Suit Goes to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KALIVA MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CANDID CARE CO. and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-588430, was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Francisco, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on March 12,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01748 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime and
double time wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods,
failure to provide compliant wage statements, failure to pay all
wages upon separation of employment, failure to maintain payroll
records, and unfair business practices.

Candid Care Co. is a manufacturer of dental equipment headquartered
in New York, New York. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         J. Kevin Snyder, Esq.
         Brian H. Newman, Esq.
         Allison M. Scott, Esq.
         DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP
         333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 457-1800
         Facsimile: (213) 457-1850
         E-mail: KSnyder@dykema.com
                 BNewman@dykema.com
                 AScott@dykema.com

CAPITAL ONE: Securities Suit Over Cybersecurity Incident Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a securities putative class action suit
related to the Cybersecurity Incident.

On July 29, 2019, the company announced that on March 22 and 23,
2019 an outside individual gained unauthorized access to the
company's systems. This individual obtained certain types of
personal information relating to people who had applied for the
company's credit card products and to the company's credit card
customers (the Cybersecurity Incident).

The company retained a leading independent cybersecurity firm that
confirmed the company correctly identified and fixed the specific
configuration vulnerability exploited in the Cybersecurity
Incident. The company continues to invest significantly in
cybersecurity and related risk management activities and expect to
make additional investments as the company continue to assess its
cybersecurity program.

The Company and certain officers have also been named as defendants
in a putative class action pending in the MDL alleging violations
of certain federal securities laws in connection with statements
and alleged omissions in securities filings relating to our
information security standards and practices.

The complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Capital One securities from July
23, 2015 to July 29, 2019, as well as unspecified monetary damages,
costs and other relief.

Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding
company for the Capital One Bank (USA), National Association; and
Capital One, National Association, which provides various financial
products and services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through three segments: Credit Card, Consumer
Banking, and Commercial Banking. Capital One Financial Corporation
was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.

CAPITAL ONE: Still Defends Consumer Suits on Cybersecurity Incident
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
company continues to defend putative consumer class action suits
related to the Cybersecurity Incident

On July 29, 2019, the company announced that on March 22 and 23,
2019 an outside individual gained unauthorized access to the
company's systems. This individual obtained certain types of
personal information relating to people who had applied for the
company's credit card products and to the company's credit card
customers (the Cybersecurity Incident).

The company retained a leading independent cybersecurity firm that
confirmed the company correctly identified and fixed the specific
configuration vulnerability exploited in the Cybersecurity
Incident. The company continues to invest significantly in
cybersecurity and related risk management activities and expects to
make additional investments as the company continues to assess its
cybersecurity program.

The company was named as a defendant in approximately 73 putative
consumer class action cases (61 in U.S. federal courts and 12 in
Canadian courts) alleging harm from the Cybersecurity Incident and
seeking various remedies, including monetary and injunctive relief.


The lawsuits allege breach of contract, negligence, violations of
various privacy laws and a variety of other legal causes of action.


The U.S. consumer class actions have been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings before a multi-district litigation (MDL) panel in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria Division, where the remaining 29 consumer class actions
are currently pending.

In the third quarter of 2020, the MDL court denied in part and
granted in part Capital One's motion to dismiss and permitted
pretrial discovery to continue.

Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding
company for the Capital One Bank (USA), National Association; and
Capital One, National Association, which provides various financial
products and services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through three segments: Credit Card, Consumer
Banking, and Commercial Banking. Capital One Financial Corporation
was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.

CAREMARK LLC: Sheth Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT for Reps
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pinki Sheth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Caremark, LLC; CVS Caremark Corporation; and CVS
Health, Case No. 1:21-cv-01155 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 26, 2021) seeks to
obtain declaratory relief and recover unpaid wages and overtime,
liquidated damages, penalties, fees and costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and any other remedies under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act, and common law.

The Plaintiff contends that that Defendants prohibit their
Representatives from clocking prior to the start of their scheduled
shifts. Because it takes Representatives a significant amount of
time to boot up their computers and start-up and log-in to various
computer programs, software programs, and applications, the
Defendants' rule compels them to perform these activities before
clocking into the Defendants' timekeeping system.

As a result of the Defendants' unlawful common policies,
Representatives are deprived of approximately 10-30 minutes per
day, including time in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, in
violation of the FLSA, the IMWL, the IWPCA, and Defendant's
contractual obligation to pay Representatives for all hours worked,
the Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked data
entry/order entry jobs with similar responsibilities. Although job
titles may differ, the Data Entry/Order Entry positions include
those with titles that include variations such as Pharmacy
Technician RX Entry, Data/Order Entry, Physician Outreach, and/or
Accounts Payable/Receivable.

Caremark, LLC and CVS Caremark are prescription benefit management
subsidiaries of CVS Health, a pharmacy / health care
conglomerate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          FRADIN LAW
          8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 986-5889
          Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA: Final Approval of $375K Deal in Urena Endorsed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE URENA, as an individual, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ALMOND
GROWERS ASSN., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00517-NONE-EPG (E.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California recommends granting
final approval of the class-action settlement and the motion for
attorneys' fees and costs, as modified.

Plaintiff Urena, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, filed the complaint commencing the class-action lawsuit
on April 13, 2018.  Plaintiff brought nine claims.  He alleged
violations of laws concerning meal and rest periods; unpaid wages;
unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practice; and claims
derivative of the foregoing.

The parties filed a notice of settlement on Nov. 4, 2019.  The
parties engaged in discovery before reaching the settlement.  After
two rounds of mediation by a retired California judge, the parties
entered into a settlement agreement.  The Plaintiff filed a motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement on April 3, 2020.  The
agreement was modified twice during the preliminary approval
process.

The settlement class includes "all who are employed or have been
employed by Defendant, in the State of California, and who have
worked one or more shifts as a nonexempt hourly agricultural
employee, as defined by the California Labor Code, Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Order 8-2001, and 29 U.S.C. Section 1892(3)
from April 13, 2014 through April 30, 2019."

The agreement creates a $375,000 common fund, with the proposed
following payments:

      Maximum Settlement Fund:                     $375,000
      Class Representative Enhancements:           $  5,000
      Class Counsel's Fees:                        $125,000
      Class Counsel's Costs:                       $ 16,542.51
      Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) Payment: $ 11,250 (75% of
$15,000)
      Settlement Administration Costs:             $ 10,441.45
      Net Settlement Amount:                       $206,766.04

The settlement agreement releases Released Claims for the Class
Period (April 13, 2014 through April 30, 2019).

On Aug. 11, 2020, the Court adopted Magistrate Judge Grosjean's
findings and recommendations and granted preliminary approval to a
proposed class-action settlement, as modified.  The Court approved
the parties' revised class-action notice on Sept. 16, 2020, and the
Plaintiff filed a motion for final approval of the settlement
agreement on Jan. 8, 2021, and a motion for attorneys' fees and
costs concurrently therewith.

The Court held a hearing on Feb. 5, 2021.  On Feb. 10, 2021,
Plaintiff Urena filed a supplemental declaration concerning the
amount of time he spent on the action.  On Feb. 18, 2021, his
counsel, Kelsey M. Szamet, filed a supplemental declaration
concerning reimbursement of costs.

The first phase of the Rule 23(e) class settlement process -- the
conditional approval of the class, the preliminary approval of the
Settlement, and the approval of the notice to be provided to the
class members -- has been completed.  The parties are now before
the Court for the second phase of the Rule 23(e) class settlement
process: (1) final class certification and (2) final approval of
the Settlement.

The Magistrate Judge finds that no indication that the Court's
preliminary determination that the proposed settlement class
satisfies the requirements for class certification was in error.
Thus, for the reasons set forth in the Court's findings and
recommendations recommending conditional class certification, and
in the district judge's order adopting in full those findings and
recommendations, she finds the requirements for final class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)
to be satisfied.

The Magistrate Judge, therefore, recommends certifying the
following class, for settlement purposes only: "All who are
employed or have been employed by Defendant, in the State of
California, and who have worked one or more shifts as a nonexempt
hourly agricultural employee, as defined by the California Labor
Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 8-2001, and 29
U.S.C. Section 1892(3) from April 13, 2014 through April 30,
2019."

The Magistrate Judge now turns to the adequacy of the class notice.
The settlement administrator initially mailed 310 copies of the
notice. Defendant located one more class member, and the settlement
administrator mailed a 311th copy.  After performing skip-traces
and remailing settlement packets, the settlement administrator
determined 19 -- amounting to 6.1% of the class members -- were
undeliverable.

The Magistrate Judge recognizes that the settlement amount is not
particularly large, so further steps to find 19 class members might
be prohibitively expensive.  Moreover, she says the action was
filed in part under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act, which indicates that some of the employees in the
class may no longer live in the area.  Thus, she concludes adequate
notice was provided to the class. She accepts the reports of the
settlement administrator and finds sufficient notice has been
provided satisfying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1).

Assessing the final approval of the proposed settlement, Magistrate
Judge says for a class-action settlement to be approved, it must be
fair, reasonable, and adequate.  A district court may consider some
or all of the following factors when assessing whether a class
action settlement agreement meets this standard: [1] the strength
of plaintiffs' case; [2] the risk, expense, complexity, and likely
duration of further litigation; [3] the risk of maintaining class
action status throughout the trial; [4] the amount offered in
settlement; [5] the extent of discovery completed, and the stage of
the proceedings; [6] the experience and views of counsel; [7] the
presence of a governmental participant; and [8] the reaction of the
class members to the proposed settlement.

The Magistrate Judge finds that (i) the Plaintiff has pointed to
significant evidence indicating that the Defendant provided the
required meal and rest breaks; (ii) the class members' reaction to
the settlement is generally positive; and (iii) she sees no reason
to revisit the preliminarily approved a $10,441.45 payment to the
settlement administrator in the action, ILYM Group, Inc.

The Magistrate Judge also finds that the requested attorneys' fees
of 33.33% of the gross settlement amount is warranted to reflect
the substantial work put into the case relative to the relatively
small fees associated with such a benchmark.  She recommends
awarding fees amounting to 29-1/6% of the common fund, or $109,375.
This amount, she says, is only slightly below the lodestar amount,
so reflects a recovery at approximately the reasonable rate for
hours expended in the case.

She further finds that the requested $16,542.51 for litigation
costs is reasonable.  She holds that the counsel seeks
reimbursement of only reimbursable, sufficiently documented costs.
Thus, she recommends permitting the recovery of $16,542.51 in
litigation expenses.

The Plaintiff also seeks a $5,000 enhancement.  The Magistrate
Judge finds that a representative enhancement is permissible but
that $5,000 is excessive in light of the relatively low recovery
for the class.  It is approximately eight times larger than the
average settlement amount and amounts to a $142 to $200 hourly
rate.  She recommends reducing this payment to $3,000.

Finally, the Magistrate Judge finds that at the final approval
hearing, the Plaintiff appeared to concede that CASA does not meet
the standards for being cy pres recipient in the action but pointed
out that the settlement agreement had not been modified as to this
point.  The final approval motion offered to provide a waterfall of
checks "provided such a distribution makes financial sense
considering the administrative fees for the distribution" or to
meet and confer with the Defendant to select another mutually
agreeable non-profit.

For the same reasons as at the preliminary approval stage, the
Magistrate Judge recommends making this determination only after
the initial distribution of funds.  In addition, in the event funds
remain after the initial distribution, she recommends ordering the
parties to meet and confer to determine whether a waterfall
distribution is feasible or whether a new cy pres recipient should
be named.

As a summary, Magistrate Judge Grosjean recommends approving the
settlement agreement, as modified to have the following payments:

      Maximum Settlement Fund:                     $375,000
      Class Representative Enhancements:           $  3,000
      Class Counsel's Fees:                        $109,000
      Class Counsel's Costs:                       $ 16,542.51
      Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) Payment: $ 11,250 (75% of
$15,000)
      Settlement Administration Costs:             $ 10,441.45
      Net Settlement Amount:                       $224,391.04

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends:

     1) The Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the Settlement
Agreement be granted, as modified;

     2) Approval of the settlement class be granted and defined as:
"All who are employed or have been employed by Defendant, in the
State of California, and who have worked one or more shifts as a
nonexempt hourly agricultural employee, as defined by the
California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order
8-2001, and 29 U.S.C. Section 1892(3) from April 13, 2014 through
April 30, 2019."

     3) The Plaintiff's request for a class representative
enhancement payment be granted, as modified, in the amount of
$3,000;

     4) The Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees be granted, as
modified, in the amount of $109,375;

     5) TheCounsel's request for costs be granted, in the amount of
$16,542.51; and

     6) Within 90 days of the initial payments to the class members
being made, the parties be ordered to file a joint status report
concerning (1) the remaining amount in the net settlement; (2) the
feasibility of a waterfall payment structure; and (3) alternate
proposed cy pres recipients.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United
States district judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1).  Within 14-days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, the
parties may file written objections with the Court.  The document
should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of
rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th
Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th
Cir. 1991)).

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2021 Findings &
Recommendations is available at https://tinyurl.com/3ts72rbf from
Leagle.com.


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Papi LLC Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAPI, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, dba Papi Chulo's
Restaurant; individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPAY, a foreign corporation,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00405-JR (D. Ore., March 16, 2021), seeks to
recover damages for Oregon businesses caused by the Defendant's
refusal to provide coverage for damages and losses sustained by
Oregon businesses as a result of governmental orders that have
either closed or significantly limited the operations of those
Oregon businesses.

To protect its business and business income, among other things,
Papi Chulo's purchased an "all risk" insurance CinciPak policy from
CIC tailored by CIC "FOR RESTAURANTS" (the "Policy"). The Policy is
effective at all relevant times alleged in this Complaint. The
Plaintiff paid, and the Defendant accepted, all premiums as they
became due. The Policy constitutes a valid and enforceable contract
between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Policy promises to pay
the Plaintiff for all risks of direct physical loss or damage to
covered property, and includes, among others, Business Income
coverage, Extra Expense coverage, and Civil Authority coverage.

In January 2020, the United States of America saw its first cases
of people infected with COVID-19. Beginning in March 2020, the
Plaintiff was forced to suspend, in whole or in part, its business
operations due to certain orders and directives issued by Oregon
Governor Kate Brown and local civil authorities which, among other
things, restricted access to and operation of the Plaintiff's
business, limited groups of people, curtailed travel, and generally
limited commercial activity, each and all of which caused the
Plaintiff to suffer loss or damage (the "Orders"). As a direct
result of the Orders, the Plaintiff was unable to operate its
business, in whole or in part, while the Orders remained in effect.
As a result, the Plaintiff's business property cannot be used for
its intended purposes and its business activities have necessarily
been suspended or interrupted. The Plaintiff sustained direct
physical loss or damage caused by the Orders.

Despite the Policy language and the coverages it promises, the
Defendant refuses to acknowledge that "loss" and "damage" refer to
distinct harms, resulting in additional protection for the
Plaintiff's loss and damage directly, efficiently, and proximately
caused by the Orders. Contrary to the coverage provisions in their
insurance policies with the Defendant, and in violation of Oregon
law, the Defendant has universally denied coverage to Plaintiff and
members of the Classes and have refused to honor the contractual
obligations the Defendant has under the policies, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is an Oregon limited liability company that owns and
operates Papi Chulo's Restaurant located in Portland, Oregon.

The Defendant is an Ohio insurance company having its principal
place of business in Fairfield, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle A. Sturm, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Thede, Esq.
          FOREMAN STURM & THEDE LLP
          P.O. Box 13098
          Portland, OR 97213
          Phone: 503.206.5824
          Email: kyle.sturm@foremansturm.com
                 nick.thede@foremansturm.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Kahl, Esq.
          NICK KAHL LLC
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 400
          Portland, OR 97204
          Phone: (971) 634-0829
          Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
          Email: nick@nickkahl.com

               - and -

          Craig Lowll, Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB LLC
          The Kress Building,
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 809-7707
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
          Email: clowell@wigginschilds.com


CIRCUIT CITY: Judge Applies Transportation Worker Definition
------------------------------------------------------------
John Lewis, Esq., of BakerHostetler, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that since 2019, we have been tracking the decisions
struggling to interpret the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act
(FAA) Section 1 exemption for transportation workers. In other
words, we've looked at who qualifies as a transportation worker
"actually engaged in the movement of goods in interstate commerce,"
as Circuit City Stores Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 119 (2001)
defined it, without explaining the definition.

Now Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District of
California has applied the transportation worker definition in a
class action case in which a former mail sorter for UPS Mail
Innovations, Inc. (UPSMI) sued UPSMI and Staffmark Investment, LLC
(Staffmark), a staffing agency, with five class action claims and a
representative claim under the California Private Attorneys General
Act (PAGA). Five of those claims related to failure to provide meal
periods, rest breaks, wages and improper practices involving that
conduct. In response, Staffmark and UPSMI sought to compel
arbitration of the individual claims, to dismiss the class claims
and to stay the PAGA claims. Judge Freeman ultimately rejected
Tracee Sheppard's argument that she was a transportation worker
exempt from the FAA, granted the motions to compel arbitration,
dismissed the class claims and remanded the PAGA claim to state
court. Sheppard v. Staffmark Investment, LLC, No. 20-cv-05443 (N.D.
Cal. Feb. 23, 2021).

Application of the FAA Section 1 Exemption

In the Feb. 23 Order, the court probed the application of the
exemption to a worker who "neither physically transports goods
herself nor [works] closely with those who do." Indeed, Sheppard's
role for UPSMI involved only processing and sorting packages
received at the center.

The FAA exemption covers "seamen, railroad employees or any other
workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." Judge Freeman
applied existing case law to that language and the facts of the
case. Sheppard admitted her job did not involve her interaction
with transportation drivers but only "sorting packages in the
warehouse in preparation for further transportation." Thus, the
judge concluded that while Sheppard "may have been working for an
employer in the transportation industry" that "does not determine
her eligibility for the FAA Section 1 exemption given her lack of
connection to the actual delivery drivers."

The Sheppard
Order illustrates some of the difficulties in applying the
exemption to those with a connection to transportation who do not
physically transport packages or work closely with those who do. In
some respects, the analysis is similar to that engaged in by the
Fifth Circuit in Eastus v. ISS Facility Services, Inc., 960 F.3d
207 (5th Cir. 2020), which we blogged about on June 1, 2020. There,
the Fifth Circuit concluded that a manager who oversaw airline
ticketing and gate agents at an airport was not covered by the
exemption. Some nuanced distinctions have to be analyzed in these
transportation-related cases.

Equitable Estoppel Covers UPSMI

Another issue that keeps arising is whether a non-signatory
defendant can enforce an arbitration agreement against a signatory
plaintiff. The ability to enforce the arbitration agreement is a
matter of state contract law. See Arthur Anderson LLP v. Carlisle,
556 U.S. 624, 631-32 (2009). In California, a non-signatory entity
can compel arbitration under the doctrine of equitable estoppel
when the plaintiff's claims are "based on the same facts and
inherently inseparable" from those against a signatory. See Murphy
v. DirecTV, Inc., 724 F.3d 1218, 1229 (9th Cir. 2013). The Sheppard
Order found the California appellate decision in Garcia v. Pexco,
LLC, 11 Cal. App. 5th Cir. 782, 217 Cal. Rptr. 3d 793, 796-7 (Cal.
Ct. App. 2017), persuasive because its facts were "nearly
identical" to Sheppard. In Pexco, the plaintiff worked for a
staffing agency and entered into an employment agreement with an
arbitration provision. While the plaintiff was on assignment at
Pexco, events occurred causing the plaintiff to sue both the
staffing agency and Pexco. The California appellate court found
that the plaintiff's claims against the staffing agency and Pexco
were subject to arbitration, since they were "untimely founded in
and intertwined with his employment relationship with [staffing
agency], which is governed by the employment agreement compelling
arbitration."

In Sheppard, the plaintiff's claims against Staffmark all were
based on the assignment to UPSMI, and she claimed both entities
were her joint employers. She referred to both as "Defendants" as
well. So the court found Sheppard's claim should be governed by the
arbitration agreement.

Finally, the court dismissed Sheppard's individual and class action
claims but remanded the PAGA claim to state court.

Bottom Line

The FAA's exemption for certain transportation workers needs to be
applied carefully and will not prevent the arbitration of claims of
employees of transportation companies who are not sufficiently
involved in the actual transportation of goods. [GN]


CLASSIC OF NY: Naranjo Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
DOLORES NARANJO (AKA LUPE), individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. THE CLASSIC OF NY NAILS & SPA INC. (D/B/A
CLASSIC NAIL & SPA), MEI LAN CUI (AKA SARAH), and YING SHUN LI (AKA
UNA), Case No. 1:21-cv-01731 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2021) seeks unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and the New York Labor Law as well as the "spread of hours"
and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Plaintiff contends that she regularly worked for the Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime or spread of hours compensation for any of the hours that
she worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
records of her hours worked and failed to pay her appropriately for
any hours worked over 40 either at the straight rate of pay or for
any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to
pay her the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which she
had to work over 10 hours a day, she adds.

Plaintiff Naranjo was employed as a nail technician at the
Defendants' nail salon.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a nail salon, located at
1501 1st Avenue, New York, NY 10075 under the name "Classic Nail &
Spa".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com

CLOVER HEALTH: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Clover
Health Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ: CLOV) ("Clover") investors that
a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired Clover publicly traded securities
between October 6, 2020 and February 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and/or purchased or acquired Clover securities pursuant
or traceable to Clover's registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the December 2020 Merger.

Shareholder Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Clover
publicly traded securities during the Class Period may, no later
than April 6, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information or to learn
how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne
Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail
at info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/clover-health-investments-corp-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=clover.

According to the complaint, Clover provides health insurance
services. Clover was taken public through a reverse merger with
IPOC, a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (the "Business
Combination"). Prior to the Business Combination, IPOC traded on
the New York Stock Exchange. The Class Period commences on October
6, 2020, when Clover issued a press release announcing its
intention to become a public company through a merger with IPOC. On
October 20, 2020, Clover filed its registration statement and
preliminary proxy statement/prospectus on a Form S-4 with the SEC
(the "Registration Statement"). The Registration Statement was
amended on December 9, 2020 and December 10, 2020, and was declared
effective on December 11, 2020. The Registration Statement touted
Clover's growth as strong and organic.

On February 4, 2021, before market hours, Hindenburg Research
published a research report that revealed that Clover's flagship
platform, Clover Assistant, was the subject of a U.S. Department of
Justice ("DOJ") investigation for a variety of issues, including
illegal kickbacks, marketing practices, and undisclosed
related-party transactions. Hindenburg discovered that Clover's
sales growth was not driven by technology, but by deceptive sales
practices. Following this news, Clover common stock (CLOV) fell
$1.72 per share, or 12.3%, to close at $12.23 per share on February
4, 2021, and Clover warrants (CLOVW) fell $0.18 per warrant, or 5%,
to close at $3.39 per warrant on February 4, 2021.

On February 5, 2021, before the market opened, Clover filed a Form
8-K disclosing that the SEC was conducting an "investigation and
requesting document and data preservation for the period from
January 1, 2020, to the present, relating to certain matters that
are referenced in the [Hindenburg Research report]." Following this
news, Clover common stock (CLOV) fell $0.53 per share, or 4.3%
during intraday trading on February 5, 2021, and Clover warrants
(CLOVW) fell $0.28 per warrant, or 8.2% during intraday trading on
February 5, 2021.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Clover was under active investigation by the DOJ
for at least 12 issues ranging from illegal kickbacks, to marketing
practices, to undisclosed related-party deals; (2) the DOJ's
investigation presented an existential risk to Clover, since it
derives most of its revenues from Medicare; (3) Clover's sales were
driven by a major undisclosed related-party deal and misleading
marketing targeting the elderly, not its purported "best-in-class"
technology; (4) a significant portion of Clover sales were from an
undisclosed relationship between Clover and a brokerage firm
controlled by Clover's Head of Sales; and (5) as a result, the
defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.

Clover investors may, no later than April 6, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com [GN]


COLUMBIA SUSSEX: O'Coyle Seeks to Recover OT & Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
SAVANGE O'COYLE, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. COLUMBIA SUSSEX
MANAGEMENT, LLC., a Kentucky limited liability company; CWGP
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Kentucky limited liability partnership;
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Maryland corporation; DAMIEN HIRSCH
an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
21STCV07840 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 1, 2021) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime and unpaid minimum wages under the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants had employed Ms. O'Coyle as a Massage Therapist
starting January 2018 to the present. Ms. O'Coyle works for at the
Santa Monica Le Merigot Hotel, which is a hotel, resort, and spa
located in Santa Monica, California.

Ms. O'Coyle's primary job duties included, without limitation,
reviewing intake forms for clients; rendering spa treatments to
clients; promoting and selling spa products; and cleaning the rooms
and equipment.

During her employment, the Defendants allegedly misclassified Ms.
O'Coyle as an independent contractor. As a result of the
Defendants' intentional misclassification of its massage therapists
as independent contractors, Defendants have denied numerous
wage-and-hour protections provided by the California Labor Code and
the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders including
overtime wages, minimum wages, meal and rest breaks, and
reimbursement of business-related expenses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
          BANNER LAW GROUP
          11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (323) 426-2991
          Facsimile: (323) 426-2975
          E-mail: arnab@bannerlawgroup.com

COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: FLSA Class Action Pending in Nebraska
----------------------------------------------------------
In a collective and class action now pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Nebraska entitled Walkinshaw et
al. v. CommonSpirit Health, et al., Case No. 19-cv-03012, the Court
has conditionally certified the Action to proceed as a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act or FLSA. The lawsuit
alleges that Defendants CommonSpirit Health, CHI Nebraska, and
Saint Elizabeth Regional Medical Center required medical nurses to
perform work relating to their positions as nurses and consisting
of, for example, phone calls, emails, and text messages while the
nurses were on call. The lawsuit alleges that Defendants violated
the FLSA and Nebraska wage-and-hour law by failing to adequately
compensate nurses for this remote on-call work.

The Court allowed all hourly medical nurses who worked at any of
the following locations and were assigned to an on-call shift but
were not properly compensated for work performed remotely while on
call and resulting in overtime from December 17, 2017 through the
present to join the lawsuit:

In Nebraska: CHI Health Laboratory in Omaha; Creighton University
Medical Center in Omaha; Good Samaritan Hospital in Kearney;
Immanuel Hospital in Omaha; Lakeside Hospital in Omaha; Midlands
Hospital in Papillion; CHI Health – Nebraska Heart in Lincoln;
CHI Health - Plainview in Plainview; CHI Health in Schuyler; Saint
Elizabeth Medical Center in Lincoln; Saint Francis Hospital in
Grand Island; CHI Health – Saint Mary's in Otoe

In Iowa: CHI Health-Mercy in Corning; Mercy Hospital in Council
Bluffs; CHI Health Missouri Valley in Harrison County

If you received a Notice of Conditional Certification for Unpaid
Overtime Wages by mail or email, you must sign and return the
Consent to Join form enclosed with the Notice by faxing, emailing,
or mailing the form to: Walkinshaw, et al. v. CommonSpirit Health
c/o CPT Group, Inc., 50 Corporate Park Irvine, CA 92606; Fax: (949)
419-3446; Email: chiwagelitigation@cptgroup.com. The deadline is
stated on the form and, depending on when you were sent the form,
is either March 13, 2021 or April 2, 2021. If you want to join, you
should send in the form sooner rather than later because you can
seek back wages under the FLSA only up to three years from the date
that the form is filed.

If you submit the Consent to Join form, you will be represented by
Plaintiffs and their lawyers, who will make decisions and
agreements on your behalf concerning the lawsuit. If Plaintiffs
recover money from Defendants, you will be eligible to participate
in any recovery obtained in the Action.

If you did not receive a Notice or Consent to Join form but believe
you should have or if you are unsure whether you are a member of
the collective action, please visit www.chiwagelitigation.com or
call 1-(888) 373-2581.

Contact:
Walkinshaw, et al. v. CommonSpirit Health, et al.
c/o CPT Group, Inc.
50 Corporate Park
Irvine, CA 92606 [GN]


COMMUNITY ENFORCEMENT: Underpays Security Guards, Carrillo Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LETICIA CARRILLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY ENFORCEMENT PATROL
PRIVATE SECURITY SERVICES CORP.; COMMUNITY ENFORCEMENT PATROL
PRIVATE SECURITY, INC.; ASTRID M. OROZCO GONZALEZ; and DOES 1 to
25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV10294 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., March 16, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California's Business and Professions Code including failure to
compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to
pay wages when employment ends, failure to maintain accurate
records, failure to give rest breaks, failure to give meal breaks,
failure to reimburse for business expenses, and unfair business
practices.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a security guard from
November 2020 until her last day of work on November 28, 2020.

Community Enforcement Patrol Private Security Services Corp. is a
security service company in Downey, California.

Community Enforcement Patrol Private Security, Inc. is a security
systems services company located in Downey, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Harout Messrelian, Esq.
         MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
         500 N. Central Ave. Suite 840
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 484-6531
         Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
         E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com

CUDAHY PLACE: Harwell-Payne FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. to E.D. Wis.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as CHARLETTA HARWELL-PAYNE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CUDAHY PLACE SENIOR
LIVING, LLC and MATTHEWS SENIOR HOUSING, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-00804, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin on March 15, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00328-SCD to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin law by failing to compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated certified nurse's
assistants appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Cudahy Place Senior Living, LLC is an assisted living facility in
Cudahy, Wisconsin.

Matthews Senior Housing, LLC is a senior citizen center in Chicago,
Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Yingtao Ho, Esq.
         THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
         310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
         Milwaukee, WI 53203
         Telephone: (414) 271-4500
         Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
         E-mail: yh@previant.com

DIGNITY HEALTH: Certification of Patient Care Employee Class Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOMERY DARLING and ANA
JARA, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
individuals, v. DIGNITY HEALTH; DIGNITY COMMUNITY CARE; DIGNITY
HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP NEVADA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 4:20-cv-06043-YGR (N.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order directing that other persons similarly
situated to them be given notice of the pendency of this action and
an opportunity to file written consents with the Court to join this
action as party plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiffs' Motion seeks the certification of the following
FLSA Class:

   "All nonexempt hourly paid patient care employees who made
   entries in the electronic medical record (EMR) system but who
   were not clocked into the timekeeping system and who were
   employed by Defendants in the United States at any time
   during the alleged relevant time period."

The Plaintiff Jara and the eight current Opt-In Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants have suffered and/or permitted them and all
other similarly situated employees to perform compensable work
without compensation.

The Plaintiff Jara was employed by Dignity Health as a non-exempt
hourly paid patient care employee at an outpatient clinic in Las
Vegas, Nevada, from November 5, 2013 to December 3, 2019.

Dignity Health is a California-based not-for-profit public-benefit
corporation that operates hospitals and ancillary care facilities
in three states.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 9, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s69Q5o at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Leah L. Jones, Esq.
          Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
                  josh@thiermanbuck.com
                  leah@thiermanbuck.com
                  joshh@thiermanbuck.com

DIRECTV: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses TCPA Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Owen, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article
for The National Law Review, reports that facing a nationwide TCPA
class action for calls allegedly made using an ATDS, DirecTV sought
partial dismissal on multiple grounds: (1) the lack of personal
jurisdiction over certain named plaintiffs; (2) the enforcement of
an arbitration clause against a different named plaintiff; and (3)
the lack of allegations of ATDS use in the operative complaint.
The Northern District of West Virginia accepted DirecTV's
jurisdictional argument but rejected its other two arguments.  See
Mey v. DirecTV, No. 5:17-CV-179, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35823
(N.D.W.V. Feb. 25, 2021).

Before we get to the merits, we should note that this case included
several repeat TCPA Plaintiffs–all in one case: Diana Mey,
Stewart Abramson, and James Shelton. (Though, as explained next,
the Court dismissed Abramson and Shelton on jurisdictional
grounds.)

First, for personal jurisdiction, the Court summarized its
understanding of the legal landscape following the Supreme Court's
decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb. Namely, that in class actions
"the named representatives must be able to demonstrate either
general or specific personal jurisdiction" over the defendant.
Since three named Plaintiffs (including Abramson and Shelton) could
not, the Court dismissed their claims. (The Court also rejected
their argument that "pendant personal jurisdiction" salvaged their
claims.)

Second, on arbitration, the Court repeated its conclusion from
earlier briefing that the arbitration clause was "unconscionable."
The Court's opinion does not include its analysis about why the
provision is unconscionable. Notably though, this conclusion is, at
a minimum, in some tension with the Federal Arbitration Act, which
requires courts to enforce arbitration clauses like any other
written contract. 9 U.S.C. Section 2; see Muriithi v. Shuttle
Express, Inc., 712 F.3d 173, 178-79 (4th Cir. 2013) (reversing
district court for refusing to enforce an arbitration clause and
class action waiver as "unconscionable").

Finally, for the ATDS allegations, the Court endorsed (and quoted
at length from) the Sixth Circuit's reasoning in Allen. Recall that
in Allen, the Sixth Circuit ruled that a predictive dialer system
is an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") because the
TCPA's definition of ATDS includes all dialers that call from a
list, not just those that call using a random or sequential number
generator. This Court followed that reasoning and concluded that
the plaintiffs sufficiently stated a claim because "the definition
of ATDS includes autodialer which dial from a stored list of
numbers."

This case is not all bad. The jurisdictional ruling is favorable
and hopefully consistent with a trend about how Courts apply
Bristol-Meyer Squibb. But, on balance, the class action continues
despite an arbitration clause and flimsy ATDS allegations. We will
keep our eye on it. [GN]


DOLGENCORP LLC: Violates Civil Rights Act, Jackson Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
RHONDA JACKSON v. DOLGENCORP, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00828-MHC-AJB
(N.D. Ga., Feb. 26, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated alleging that the the Defendant
violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 regarding
the discriminatory treatment, harassment, and retaliation that
Plaintiff suffered at the hands of Dollar General.

Rhonda began working for Dollar General on April 6, 1994. Rhonda
remained loyally working for Dollar General until she was fired on
July 2, 2019, just months after reporting discrimination, and after
enduring months of ongoing harassment from her supervisors,
including her direct manager, Robin Joslin, the suit says.

According to the complaint, Rhonda was wrongfully terminated for
her race, and color, and in retaliation for her reporting
discrimination, harassment, and hostile environment.

Dolgencorp, LLC operates as a discount store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dorsey R. Carson, Jr., Esq.
          CARSON LAW GROUP, PLLC
          2870 Peachtree Road, NW No. 915-3234
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (601) 351-9831
          Facsimile: (601) 510-9056
          E-mail: dcarson@thecarsonlawgroup.com

EAST END: Morales Seeks Unpaid OT Premium Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorenzo Morales, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. East End Alliance Corporation d/b/a Golden Pear Cafe
and Keith Davis, Individually, Case No. 2:21-cv-01075 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 1, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium pay owed to
them pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff also brings claims for unpaid spread-of-hours
premiums and for failure to provide proper wage notices and wage
statements pursuant to NYLL.

The Plaintiff contends that he was not paid overtime premiums for
hours worked over 40 in a given workweek.

The Plaintiff brings his FLSA claims on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated employees of the Defendants and his NYLL
claims on behalf of himself and a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 class of all non-management employees working for the Defendants
in New York during the six year period preceding the filing of this
complaint.

East End offers breakfast, lunch, and special events.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aneeba Rehman, Esq.
          PERVEZ & REHMAN, P.C.
          68 South Service Road, Suite 100
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 427-0700
          Facsimile: (631) 824-9020
          E-mail: info@pervezrehman.com

EDISON INT'L: Bellwether Jury Trial Set for July 19
---------------------------------------------------
Southern California Edison Company (SCE) said, in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020,
that bellwether trial, on certain fire only matters, is currently
scheduled for July 19, 2021.

In November 2018, wind-driven wildfires impacted portions of SCE's
service territory and caused substantial damage to both residential
and business properties and service outages for SCE customers.

The largest of these fires, known as the Woolsey Fire, originated
in Ventura County and burned acreage located in both Ventura and
Los Angeles Counties.

According to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
(CAL FIRE) information, the Woolsey Fire burned almost 100,000
acres, destroyed an estimated 1,643 structures, damaged an
estimated 364 structures and resulted in three fatalities.

As of February 18, 2021, SCE was aware of at least 295 lawsuits,
representing approximately 4,000 plaintiffs, related to the Thomas
and Koenigstein Fires naming SCE as a defendant.

One hundred fifty of the 295 lawsuits also name Edison
International as a defendant based on its ownership and alleged
control of SCE. At least four of the lawsuits were filed as
purported class actions.

The lawsuits, which have been filed in the superior courts of
Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties allege, among other
things, negligence, inverse condemnation, trespass, private
nuisance, and violations of the public utilities and health and
safety codes.

An initial trial for a limited number of plaintiffs, sometimes
referred to as a bellwether trial, on certain fire-only matters, is
currently scheduled for July 19, 2021.

The bellwether trial date may be further delayed to provide SCE and
certain of the individual plaintiffs in the Thomas and Koenigstein
Fire litigation the opportunity to pursue settlements of claims
under a program adopted to promote an efficient and orderly
settlement process.

Southern California Edison Company, a public utility, engages in
the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in
California. It generates electricity through hydroelectric,
diesel/liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, nuclear, and photovoltaic
resources. The company was founded in 1896 and is based in
Rosemead, California. Southern California Edison Company is a
subsidiary of Edison International.

EDR ASSETS: Class in Hess Suit Certified; Newman Named Lead Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELE E. HESS, JILL GOLDRING, MATTHEW HEAP, RUZANDRA
HEAP, CRAIG GIBSON JR. and ANNA MILLER, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EDR ASSETS LLC and
PARKOFF OPERATING CORP., Defendants. EDR ASSETS LLC,
Counterclaim-Plaintiff, v. JILL GOLDRING, GLYN PARSLEY, SONDRA
STAMEN, JOHN DOE, and JANE DOE, Counterclaim-Defendants, Docket No.
160494/2017, Mot. Seq. No. 004 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Frank P. Nervo of
Supreme Court of New York County granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify class.

The Plaintiffs move to certify the matter as a class action,
appoint Michele Hess as the lead plaintiff and class
representative, appoint Newman Ferrara LLP as the counsel for the
class, approve the proposed class notice, and compel the Defendants
to provide contact information for the class.

The Defendants oppose contending some of the named Plaintiffs
waived the instant action against EDR Assets in exchange for a
waiver of outstanding rent.  The further oppose, contending that
Hess is an inappropriate class representative.

As an initial matter, Judge Nervo finds the claims asserted
meritorious, for the purposes of class certification.  The
Plaintiffs claim, inter alia, that while the Defendants were
receiving J-51 tax benefits they failed to offer the Plaintiffs the
requisite rent-stabilized leases.  This cause of action is well
established.  To the extent the Defendants contend that the
purported waiver of by certain tenants of their claims in the
lawsuit bars certification of the class such claim is unsupported
by case law or statute, and is therefore rejected.

Next, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have met the class action
requirements under CPLR Sections 901 and 902.  First, the
Defendants, via their own stipulation, have waived the right to
challenge numerosity on the motion.  Second, the common questions
of law and fact of the putative class predominate over any
individual issues or circumstances.  Third, the typicality is met
because the Rent Stabilization Law claims of the purported class
are based upon the same course of conduct, the execution of
non-stabilized leases, and the same legal theory, violation of the
stabilization laws while receiving J-51 tax benefit.  Fourth, there
is no evidence that the named Plaintiff is conflicted or otherwise
an inadequate representative for the class.  Finally, a class
action is the superior method to adjudicate the claims.

A tenant class member is entitled to the first third of a treble
damages award under the RSL and appropriate interest, as that
merely compensates the tenant, but CPLR 907[b] prohibits seeking
the remaining two-thirds of the treble damages, as that imposes a
penalty.  In the case, on reply, the plaintiffs have waived their
right to seek treble damages or other penalties.  Consequently,
certification of the class is not prohibited on this basis.

The Judge also finds that the proposed notice fails to provide the
dates J-51 benefits were in effect.  Thus, a potential class member
receiving the notice cannot determine whether their period of
tenancy makes them an eligible class member -- i.e. whether their
period of tenancy overlaps with defendants' receipt of J-51
benefits.  Consequently, the Judge rejected the notice.

Finally, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the
Defendants provide the current rent-roll for the subject building.
He holds that the discoverability of material is greater than
admissibility.  The Defendants have not raised privilege or
established what additional irrelevant material is contained in the
rent-roll and the basis for denying disclosure, contending only
that a current rent roll seeks information far beyond what the
Plaintiffs would need in order to disseminate the notice to members
of the putative class.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Nervo granted the branch of the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class is granted.  He appointed
Newman Ferrara LLP as the counsel for the class.

To the extent the Plaintiffs seek approval of the proposed class
notice affixed to their papers, the Judge denied that branch of the
motion without prejudice, and with leave to renew, upon the
submission of a further proposed notice, within 60 days, including
the dates J-51 benefits were in effect and the tenancy dates
eligible for the class-action, or, alternatively, by stipulation to
be so-ordered by the Court.

Should the Defendants wish to submit a counter-notice, they may do
so within 60 days.  They will provide contact information for the
class, via a copy of the rent roll, to the counsel for the class
within 60 days.  The counsel will appear for a status conference on
July 29, 2021, at 2:15 p.m., via Microsoft Teams.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 10, 2021 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/b6csf2pk from Leagle.com.


EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Faces Kincaid Employment Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Educational Credit
Management Corporation. The case is captioned as Sheila Kincaid vs.
Educational Credit Management Corporation, Case No.
34-2021-00295336-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 26,
2021).

The case is brought over alleged employment violations.

The Defendants include Does 1-100 and ECMC Group.

Educational Credit Management Corporation is a United States
nonprofit corporation based in Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Ave Ste 203
          Glendale, CA 91203-4007
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@calljustice.com

EHANG HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against EHang Holdings Limited ("EHang" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: EH) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-01811, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired EHang securities between December 12, 2019 and
February 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action is
brought on behalf of the class for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"),
15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

If you are a shareholder who purchased EHang securities during the
Class Period, you have until April 19, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

EHang purports to be an autonomous aerial vehicle ("AAV")
technology platform company. The Company has stated that it is
"pioneering the future of transportation through our proprietarily
developed AAVs and related commercial solutions. We believe we are
the first in the world to launch passenger-grade AAVs, setting a
new milestone in AAV technology." EHang's purported flagship,
passenger-grade AAV is the "EH216."

In recent press releases and other public statements, Defendants
have lauded EHang's AAV business and prospects, including
announcing numerous "flight certifications" and "long-term"
approvals for its "passenger-grade" EH216 in the United States,
Canada, and various European countries. As alleged in the
Complaint, Defendants have repeatedly asserted that EHang is "the
world's leading [AAV] technology platform company."

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) the Company's purported regulatory approvals in
Europe and North America for its EH216 were for use as a drone, and
not for carrying passengers; (ii) EHang's relationship with its
purported primary customer is a sham; (iii) EHang has only
collected on a fraction of its reported sales since its American
depository shares ("ADSs") began trading on the NASDAQ stock
exchange in December 2019; (iv) the Company's manufacturing
facilities were practically empty and lacked evidence of advanced
manufacturing equipment or employees; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

During the trading day on February 16, 2021, analyst Wolfpack
Research ("Wolfpack") published a scathing report entitled "EHang:
A Stock Promotion Destined to Crash and Burn." In this report, and
as further alleged in the Complaint, Wolfpack wrote that EHang is
"an elaborate stock promotion, built on largely fabricated revenues
based on sham sales contracts with a customer [Shanghai Kunxiang
Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.] who appears to us to be more
interested in helping inflate the value of its investment in
EH[ang] . . . than about buying its products." Wolfpack wrote that
it had "gathered extensive evidence" to support its report,
"including behind-the-scenes photographs, recorded phone calls, and
videos of on-site visits to EH[ang]'s various facilities." Wolfpack
also noted that "in just 14 months as a publicly traded company,
EH[ang]'s PR team has put out 50 press releases . . . . However,
EH[ang]'s constant stream of press releases are easily proven
untrue." Finally, Wolfpack wrote that it "obtained Chinese court
records which show that EH[ang]'s [American Depository
Receipts—i.e., ADSs] may already be in serious jeopardy due to
legal issues in China."

On this news, the price of EHang ADSs fell from their February 12,
2021 close of $124.09 per share to a February 16, 2021 close of
$46.30 per share, a one day drop of $77.79 per share, or
approximately 62.7%.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]


ELECTROLUX HOME: Claims in Rice's Third Amended Complaint Narrowed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELAINE RICE, ALEX KUKICH, and DEAN MAURO,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., LOWE'S HOME CENTERS,
LLC, and ABC CORP. 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 4:15-CV-00371 (M.D.
Pa.), Judge Matthew W. Brann of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint filed by Defendants Electrolux and Lowe's.

The action commenced more than six years ago.  The microwaves
distributed by Electrolux are described as "over-the-range" ("OTR")
microwaves.  The exterior packaging and labeling of these
microwaves specifically represent them as OTR microwaves.  These
microwaves incorporate a distinct handle design that has been
afflicted with a defect that causes the handles to absorb heat from
the range below the microwaves, resulting in dangerous
temperatures.  Only Electrolux knew about the Handle Defect, and it
hid this problem from consumers, including Plaintiff Mauro.

If the Handle Defect had been disclosed to Mauro, he would not have
purchased the microwave, or he would have paid less for it.  Mauro
bought the microwave because it was represented as an OTR
microwave; this provided added value over other microwaves he could
have bought.  At the time of purchase, the Plaintiffs relied on the
fact that the microwaves were designed to be used as OTR
microwaves, and saw the representation that this microwave was, in
fact, an OTR microwave.  These representations were, for example,
included on the exterior packaging and labeling of the microwaves.
The Plaintiffs were misled by the non-disclosure of the Handle
Defect.

Defendants Electrolux and Lowe's have filed a motion to dismiss the
Instant Complaint.

In addressing previous iterations of the complaint and motions to
dismiss, the Court dismissed with prejudice Rice's negligence
claims to "to the extent that those claims were premised on pure
economic loss."  Judge Brann reaffirmed that decision in August
2020 and ordered that Rice's negligence claim within the
Consolidated Amended Complaint's Rice-Kukich Action Count Seven is
dismissed with prejudice, to the extent that this claim is premised
on pure economic loss.  He informed the Plaintiffs that they would
"receive a chance to amend their complaint again--though the
amendment will not cover Rice's Pennsylvania law tort-based claims
for pure economic loss."

The Defendants note that Rice appears to have included these tort
law claims in the Instant Complaint.  They ask the Court to dismiss
those claims with prejudice again.  In the Instant Complaint, the
Plaintiffs acknowledge that the Court has dismissed several claims
with prejudice as set forth in its Orders and Opinions of Jan. 15,
2020, and Aug. 13, 2020.  They further state that these claims are
not repled to that dismissal, which they intend to appeal.  In
briefing, the Plaintiffs represent that Counts 2, 3, and 7 are not
asserted for economic losses on behalf of Plaintiff Rice or the
Pennsylvania State Sub-Class.

Because there appears to be some confusion between the parties as
to whether or not these claims for economic loss are to be
litigated, and to ensure that all parties understand the lay of the
land regarding this issue, Judge Brann once again dismisses those
causes of action with prejudice, but only to the extent that they
are based on economic losses.

In order for a plaintiff to state a claim for a violation of New
York's General Business Law ("G.B.L.") Sections 349 and 350, a
plaintiff must "allege (1) that the defendant's acts were consumer
oriented, (2) that the acts or practices are deceptive or
misleading in a material way, and (3) that the plaintiff has been
injured as a result."  Electrolux and Lowe's do not dispute the
first two elements of the claim, but suggest that the Plaintiffs
have not established causation.

Judge Brann finds that the Plaintiffs have done enough to survive
this motion to dismiss.  The Plaintiffs have identified the
specific injurious misrepresentations and omissions (the claims
that the microwave was a functioning OTR microwave, without any
disclosure of the Handle Defect) and alleged an injury stemming
therefrom.

The Defendants also argue that the description of the microwave as
an OTR microwave is an unactionable "factually truthful statement."
The Judge notes that the premise of the Plaintiffs' claim is that
because of the undisclosed Handle Defect, the microwaves at issue
are not, in fact, suitable for use over a range.  As the Plaintiffs
say, "the literal ability to mount the Microwave over a range does
not render the "Over-the-Range" misrepresentation factually
accurate."  This creates a factual dispute that is inappropriate
for resolution at this stage.  The Judge cannot say conclusively
that it would be factually truthful to describe the microwaves as
OTR-appropriate.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Brann granted in part and denied
in part the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 10, 2021 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/66wcj4tj from Leagle.com.


ENDEAVOR AIR: Faces Levy Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRITNEY LEVY and MAURICE ROMALHO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ENDEAVOR AIR, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 602841/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 9, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant pursuant to
Civil Law and Rule for its alleged violations of the New York Labor
Law.

Ms. Levy was employed by the Defendant as a flight attendant from
on or about September 2016 to on or about May 4, 2018 while Romalho
as a maintenance worker, mechanic, and inspector from on or about
May 2014 to the present.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated Manual Workers who were employed by the Defendant have
suffered damages because of the Defendant's unlawful pay policies
and practices of failing to properly pay them for their lawfully
earned wages on a timely basis in accordance with the law.
Additionally, the Defendant failed to provide them with an accurate
wage statement with every payment of wages which accurately
reflected their overtime rate and hours worked per week, the suit
alleges.

On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Manual
Workers, the Plaintiffs seek to recover untimely wage compensation,
liquidated damages in the amount of the untimely wage payments,
statutory penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court
shall deem just and proper.

Endeavor Air, Inc. operator of MHI RJ CRJ-900 aircraft. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty St., 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Tel: (212) 300-0375


EPIC LANDSCAPE: Albelo Seeks to Certify Landscape Laborer Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RADAMES MOLINA ALBELO On
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, v. EPIC
LANDSCAPE PRODUCTIONS, L.C., Case No. 4:17-cv-00454-DGK (W.D. Mo.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action on behalf of the
      following class:

      "All persons who worked for Defendant as Landscape Laborers
      in Kansas and Missouri, and who supervised less than two full

      time employees from October 19, 2012 to the present, who
      performed work for the Defendant for more than 40 hours in
      workweek without proper compensation";

   2. certifying and appointing the Plaintiff Radames Molina Albelo

      as Class representative for the class seeking relief under
      Unjust Enrichment;

   3. certifying and appointing the Plaintiff Jose
Mercado-Gonzalez
      as Class representative for the class seeking relief under
      Breach of Contract;

   4. designating and appointing Plaintiff's counsel of record, the

      Hodgson Law Firm, Bertram Graf, and Reiben Brothers, as Class

      counsel; and

   5. granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem

      just and proper.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 10,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sfqfo4
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Hodgson, Esq.
          THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
          3699 SW Pryor Rd.
          Lee's Summit, MO 64082
          Telephone: (816) 600-0117
          Facsimile: (816) 600-0137
          E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Pablo Mose, Esq.
          REBEIN BROTHERS, P.A.
          810 Frontview
          Dodge City, KS 67801
          Telephone: (620) 227-8126
          Facsimile: (620) 227-8451
          E-mail: Pablo@rbr3.com

               - and -

          Timothy R. West, Esq.
          BERTRAM & GRAF, L.L.C.
          2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1925
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 523-2205
          Facsimile: (816) 523-8258
          E-mail: tim@bertramgraf.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric W. Barth, Esq.
          HINKLE LAW FIRM LLC
          1617 North Waterfront Parkway, Suite 400
          Wichita, KS 67206
          E-mail: ebarth@hinklaw.com

               - and -

          Charlie Rosebrough, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, L.L.P.
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, Missouri 64108-2613
          Telephone: (816) 474-6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
          E-mail: crosebrough@shb.com

EPIC LANDSCAPE: Seeks to Decertify Conditionally Certified Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RADAMES MOLINA ALBELO On
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, v. EPIC
LANDSCAPE PRODUCTIONS, L.C., Case No. 4:17-cv-00454-DGK (W.D. Mo.),
the Defendant Epic moves to decertify the conditional class
certified on May 23, 2018:

      "All persons who worked for Defendant as Landscape Laborers
      in Kansas and Missouri, and who supervised less than two full

      time employees from October 19, 2012 to the present, who
      performed work for the Defendant for more than 40 hours in
      workweek without proper compensation";

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 10, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NE4Q8X at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Hodgson, Esq.
          THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
          3699 SW Pryor Rd.
          Lee's Summit, MO 64082
          Telephone: (816) 600-0117
          Facsimile: (816) 600-0137
          E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Pablo Mose, Esq.
          REBEIN BROTHERS, P.A.
          810 Frontview
          Dodge City, KS 67801
          Telephone: (620) 227-8126
          Facsimile: (620) 227-8451
          E-mail: Pablo@rbr3.com

               - and -

          Timothy R. West, Esq.
          BERTRAM & GRAF, L.L.C.
          2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1925
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 523-2205
          Facsimile: (816) 523-8258
          E-mail: tim@bertramgraf.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric W. Barth, Esq.
          HINKLE LAW FIRM LLC
          1617 North Waterfront Parkway, Suite 400
          Wichita, KS 67206
          E-mail: ebarth@hinklaw.com

               - and -

          Charlie Rosebrough, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, L.L.P.
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, Missouri 64108-2613
          Telephone: (816) 474-6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
          E-mail: crosebrough@shb.com

EQUIFAX INC: Consumer Class Suits in Georgia State Court Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the class action suits
pending before the Fulton County Business Court in Georgia remains
stayed.

Four putative class actions arising from the 2017 cybersecurity
incident were filed against us in Fulton County Superior Court and
Fulton County State Court in Georgia based on similar allegations
and theories as alleged in the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation and
seek monetary damages, injunctive relief and other related relief
on behalf of Georgia citizens.

These cases were transferred to a single judge in the Fulton County
Business Court and three of the cases were consolidated into a
single action.

On July 27, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the
Company's motion to stay the remaining single case, and on August
17, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the Company's
motion to stay the consolidated case.

These cases remain stayed pending final resolution of the U.S.
Consumer MDL Litigation.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


EQUIFAX INC: Settlement in Data Security Breach Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the final approval order
of the settlement in the U.S. consolidated consumer class action
cases, captioned In re: Equifax, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, MDL No. 2800, has been appealed.

On July 19, 2019 and July 22, 2019, the company entered into
multiple agreements that resolve the U.S. consolidated consumer
class action cases, captioned In re: Equifax, Inc. Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2800, and the investigations of
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Attorneys General of 48 states, the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico (the "MSAG Group") and The New
York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS).

Under the terms of the Consumer Settlement, the Company will
contribute $380.5 million to a non-reversionary settlement fund
(the "Consumer Restitution Fund") to provide restitution for U.S.
consumers identified by the Company whose personal information was
compromised as a result of the 2017 cybersecurity incident as well
as to pay reasonable attorneys' fees and reasonable costs and
expenses for the plaintiffs' counsel in the U.S. Consumer MDL
Litigation (not to exceed $80.5 million), settlement administration
costs and notice costs.

The Company has agreed to contribute up to an additional $125.0
million to the Consumer Restitution Fund to cover certain
unreimbursed costs and expenditures incurred by affected U.S.
consumers in the event the $380.5 million in the Consumer
Restitution Fund is exhausted.

The Company also agreed to various business practice commitments
related to consumer assistance and its information security
program, including conducting third party assessments of its
information security program.

On January 13, 2020, the Northern District of Georgia, the U.S.
District Court overseeing centralized pre-trial proceedings for the
U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation and numerous other federal court
actions relating to the 2017 cybersecurity incident, entered an
order granting final approval of the settlement in connection with
the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation.

The MDL Court entered an amended order granting final approval of
the settlement on March 17, 2020. Several objectors have appealed
the final approval order.

Equifax said, "Until the appeals are finally adjudicated or
dismissed and the settlement becomes final in accordance with its
terms, we can provide no assurance that the U.S. Consumer MDL
Litigation will be resolved as contemplated by the settlement
agreement. If the Court's order approving the settlement agreement
was overturned by an appellate court and not cured in accordance
with the terms of the consent orders with the FTC and CFPB, the
consent orders with the FTC, CFPB and MSAG Group would remain in
place and the Consumer Restitution Fund would be administered by
the FTC. In that event, there is a risk that we would not be able
to settle the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation on acceptable terms or
at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition."

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

EVICT-A-BUG TERMINATE: Horowitz Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW HOROWITZ, and BOYD
KILBY, on behalf of themselves And others similarly situated, v.
EVICT-A-BUG TERMINATE AND PEST CONTROL, INC., JESSICA LUGARA,
individually, and PAUL LUGARA, individually, Case No.
21-119-CA.(Filed Feb. 2, 2021), was removed from the the 19th
Judicial Circuit in and for Martin County, Florida, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March
1, 2021.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-14107-XXXX to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay necessary overtime compensation and
by purportedly retaliating against the Plaintiff Horowitz by
forcing him to resign from his employment with Defendants.

Evict-A-Bug Termite & Pest Control is a full-service pest control
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Sheslow, Esq.
          Thomas J. Jerla, Esq.
          WHITEL & MELTON, LLC
          11020 Northcliffe Boulevard
          Spring Hill, FL, 34608
          Telephone: (352) 683 2016
          Facsimile: (352) 556 4839
          E-mail: Will@theFLlawfirm.com
                  Tjerla@theFLlawfirm.com
                  Service@theFLlawfirm.com
                  Jwalsh@theFLlawfirm.com
                  Pl@theFLlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kenneth M. Rehns, Esq.
          WARD DAMON PL
          4420 Beacon Circle
          West Palm Beach, FL 33407-3281
          Telephone: (561) 842-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 842-3626
          E-mail: litservice@warddamon.com
                  krehns@warddamon.com

EXP REALTY: Faces Kaznecki Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID W. KAZNECKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXP REALTY, LLC, a Washington
Company, Defendant, Case No. 9:21-cv-80512-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March
8, 2021) brings this class action complaint against the Defendant
for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent him at least four
unsolicited telemarketing text messages from January 19, 2021 to
January 25, 2021 in an attempt to market and advertise its business
and services. The Plaintiff did not provide his prior express
consent to the Defendant or its agents to receive messages to his
cellular telephone. Due to the Defendant's texts, the Plaintiff's
telephone has become unavailable to place or receive other calls
and depleted the phone's battery. Moreover, the Plaintiff's privacy
was wrongfully invaded and he has become understandably aggravated
because of the Defendant's unsolicited text messages, the suit
says.

The Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from
calling telephone numbers assigned to the National Do Not Call
Registry without the prior express consent of the called party, as
well as statutory damages, willful damages, reasonable attorney's
fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems reasonable and
just.

EXP Realty, LLC is a global online brokerage. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Ave., Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 524-2820
          Fax: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: seth@epllc.com
        
                - and –

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Tel: (954) 889-3359
          Fax: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com


FAIRVIEW HEALTH: Dolan Sues Over Failure to Provide Health Records
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Dolan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fairview Health Services and HealthEast Care System,
Case No. 27-CV-21-3045 (Minn. 4th Judicial Dist. Ct., Hennepin
Cty., March 16, 2021), is brought against the Defendant for their
failure to timely provide health care records to its patients in
violation of the Minnesota law.

Access to personal health information is a fundamental right.
Minnesota law recognizes this right and requires healthcare
providers to give their patients access to this information in a
way that is inexpensive and convenient within 30 calendar days of a
request. Minnesota law has established a straightforward process
that allows patients to request and obtain their medical records
under the Minnesota Health Records Act ("MHRA"). Healthcare
providers are well aware of this process, and they are legally
required to follow the process set forth in the MHRA when a patient
submits a request for his or her medical records.

A negligently injured patient has a legal right to pursue
compensation from the responsible healthcare provider through the
civil justice system. Healthcare providers, however, can prevent
patients from asserting their rights by denying or delaying access
to personal health information. This conduct is illegal, unfair,
and wrong. Regrettably, the Defendants have engaged in unlawful and
unethical conduct by failing to timely provide health care records
to its patients. The Defendants often erects barriers to providing
this information to their patents in direct violation of Minnesota
law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Mark Dolan is a resident of Woodbury, Minnesota.

FHS owns and operates a broad spectrum of health care services and
facilities under the brands "M Health Fairview," "HealthEast," and
"Fairview." Its operations include hospitals, primary and specialty
care clinics, ambulatory care centers, retail and specialty
pharmacies, rehabilitation centers, senior care housing and
long-term care facilities, hospice home care, and medical
transportation services, among others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon E. Thompson, Esq.
          Barry M. Landy, Esq.
          Colin F. Peterson, Esq.
          Rachel L. Barrett, Esq.
          CIRESI CONLIN LLP
          225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-361-8200
          Email: bet@ciresiconlin.com
                 bml@ciresiconlin.com
                 cfp@ciresiconlin.com
                 rlb@ciresiconlin.com


FANDUEL GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Real-Time Scoring Data Delay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that FanDuel was
sued in federal court Tuesday by a user of the gambling app, who
says the platform delays real-time scoring data and causes bettors
to lose more money.

"While purporting to provide its customers with real-time, live
sports game data, FanDuel regularly understates the time remaining
in live sporting events to induce its customers to make wagers they
are more likely to lose" than if they were being provided accurate,
real-time information, the complaint alleges.

The proposed class action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, alleges the online gambling company
engages in unfair and deceptive trade practices. The complaint
alleges violations of various states' consumer protection laws.

The named plaintiff seeks damages for himself and an order halting
FanDuel from operating until its app "accurately reflects the time
remaining in a given live sporting event."

Andrew Melnick alleges he made a number of wagers that the combined
score of two competing men's college NCAA basketball teams would be
less than a given number based on the information provided on the
FanDuel platform, known in gambling parlance as the "under."

Although the time remaining in the game is "critical to the
determination of the risk and reward associated with a given
wager," he later learned that the time is "frequently materially
understated on the real-time display on the FanDuel platform," the
complaint alleges.

And in some instances, the score reported on the FanDuel platform
was inaccurate, according to the complaint.

The balky data caused him to bet the under and lose, when he
wouldn't have otherwise placed the bet, the complaint says.

Cause of Action: Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act; New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; Pennsylvania Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; West Virginia Consumer
Protection Act; Indiana Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices
Act; Iowa Consumer Fraud Act; Colorado Consumer Protection Act;
Tennessee Consumer Protection Act; Virginia Consumer Protection Act
of 1977; Michigan Consumer Protection Act; breach of contract;
unjust enrichment.

Relief: Injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

Potential Class Size: Although the exact number of class members is
unknown, there are more than 6 million members of the FanDuel
platform and App, the complaint alleges.

Response: FanDuel didn't immediately respond to a request for
comment.

Attorneys: Daniel John Voelker in Chicago represents the proposed
class.

The case is Melnick v. Betfair Interactive US LLC, N.D. Ill., No.
21-cv-01178, 3/2/21. [GN]


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Discovery Ongoing in Hearing Loss Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation, said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is
ongoing in a class action suit initiated by firefighters who claim
that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their hearing
and that the sirens are therefore defective.

The Company has been sued for monetary damages by firefighters who
claim that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their
hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33
cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a
total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter
plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago.

In 2009, six additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving
299 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. During 2013, another case
was filed in Cook County involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for
trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the number
of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine plaintiffs
concluded with a verdict against the Company and for the plaintiffs
in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million.

The Company appealed this verdict. On September 13, 2012, the
Illinois Appellate Court rejected this appeal. The Company
thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with the Illinois
Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7, 2013. The Company
sought further review by filing a petition for leave to appeal with
the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the
Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order declining to accept
review of this case.

On July 1, 2013, the Company satisfied the judgments entered for
these plaintiffs, which resulted in final dismissal of these
cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of this
trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous.

The Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for
interlocutory appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois
Appellate Court accepted the Company's petition. On June 8, 2012,
plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company
that the trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial
in this matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois
Appellate Court reversed the trial court's certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the
three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed.

On December 17, 2012, the jury entered a complete defense verdict
for the Company. Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again
moved to certify a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for
trial on the sole issue of whether the Company's sirens were
defective and unreasonably dangerous.

Over the Company's objection, the trial court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification on March 11, 2013 and scheduled a
class action trial to begin on June 10, 2013. The Company filed a
petition for review with the Illinois Appellate Court on March 29,
2013 seeking reversal of the class certification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the
class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the
Appellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed to
satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of the
firefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues and
that there is an adequate representative for the class.

During a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented
to the Court that they would again seek to certify a class of
firefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were
defective and unreasonably dangerous. On January 12, 2015,
plaintiffs filed motions to amend their complaints to add class
action allegations with respect to Chicago firefighter plaintiffs,
as well as the approximately 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from
locations outside of Chicago.

On March 11, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motions to
amend their complaints. On April 24, 2015, the cases were
transferred to Cook County chancery court, which will decide all
class certification issues.

On March 23, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify as a class
all firefighters from the Chicago Fire Department who have filed
lawsuits in this matter.

The court has not yet ruled on this motion as the parties continue
to engage in discovery and other matters related to this motion.

The Company intends to continue its objections to any attempt at
certification.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Federal Signal Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and supplies a suite of products and
integrated solutions for municipal, governmental, industrial, and
commercial customers in the United States, Canada, Europe, and
internationally. It operates through two segments, Environmental
Solutions Group and Safety and Security Systems Group. Federal
Signal Corporation was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Oak
Brook, Illinois.


FIRST MERCURY: Refused to Honor Insurance Policy, Zeco Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZECO DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC DBA RIVER PIG SALOON, an Oregon limited
liability company, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FIRST MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign
corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-00406-SI (D. Ore., March 16, 2021),
is brought to recover damages for Oregon businesses caused by the
Defendant's refusal to provide coverage for damages and losses
sustained by Oregon businesses as a result of governmental orders
that have either closed or significantly limited the operations of
those Oregon businesses.

To protect its business and business income, among other things,
Zeco purchased an "all risk" insurance policy FMIC, numbered
FMEV112703, that was effective from October 30, 2019, to October
30, 2020 (the "Policy"). The Policy is effective at all relevant
times alleged in this Complaint. Plaintiff paid, and Defendant
accepted, all premiums as they became due. The Policy constitutes a
valid and enforceable contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. The
Policy promises to pay Plaintiff for all risks of direct physical
loss or damage to covered property, and includes, among others,
Business Income coverage, Extra Expense coverage, and Civil
Authority coverage.

In January 2020, the United States of America saw its first cases
of people infected with COVID-19. Beginning in March 2020, the
Plaintiff was forced to suspend, in whole or in part, its business
operations due to certain orders and directives issued by Oregon
Governor Kate Brown and local civil authorities which, among other
things, restricted access to and operation of the Plaintiff's
business, limited groups of people, curtailed travel, and generally
limited commercial activity, each and all of which caused the
Plaintiff to suffer loss or damage (the "Orders"). As a direct
result of the Orders, the Plaintiff was unable to operate its
business, in whole or in part, while the Orders remained in effect.
As a result, the Plaintiff's business property cannot be used for
its intended purposes and its business activities have necessarily
been suspended or interrupted. The Plaintiff sustained direct
physical loss or damage caused by the Orders.

Despite the Policy language and the coverages it promises, the
Defendant refuses to acknowledge that "loss" and "damage" refer to
distinct harms, resulting in additional protection for the
Plaintiff's loss and damage directly, efficiently, and proximately
caused by the Orders. Contrary to the coverage provisions in their
insurance policies with the Defendant, and in violation of Oregon
law, the Defendant has universally denied coverage to Plaintiff and
members of the Classes and have refused to honor the contractual
obligations the Defendant has under the policies, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is an Oregon limited liability company that owns and
operates the River Pig Saloon taverns located in Portland, Oregon.

First Mercury Insurance Company is a Delaware surplus lines
insurance company having its principal place of business in
Southfield, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle A. Sturm, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Thede, Esq.
          FOREMAN STURM & THEDE LLP
          P.O. Box 13098
          Portland, OR 97213
          Phone: 503.206.5824
          Email: kyle.sturm@foremansturm.com
                 nick.thede@foremansturm.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Kahl, Esq.
          NICK KAHL LLC
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 400
          Portland, OR 97204
          Phone: (971) 634-0829
          Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
          Email: nick@nickkahl.com

               - and -

          Craig Lowll, Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB LLC
          The Kress Building,
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 809-7707
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
          Email: clowell@wigginschilds.com


FLORISSANT, MO: April 12 Response Date to Class Cert. Bid Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS BAKER, SEAN BAILEY,
NICOLE BOLDEN, ALLISON NELSON, MEREDITH WALKER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF FLORISSANT,
MISSOURI, Case No. 4:16-cv-01693-NAB (E.D. Mo.), the Defendant asks
the Court to enter an order granting them until April 12, 2021 to
file its response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, along with such other and further relief as the
Court deems proper.

By this Court's order of February 25, 2021, the Defendant's
response to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is currently
due on March 25, 2021. Due to the press of business, the demands of
undersigned counsel’s various other cases, and anticipated
personal absence the week of March 15-19, the timing of the
response deadline is such that the Defendant requires more time to
complete its response.

A copy of the Defendant's motion https://bit.ly/3cR96uq at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Blake D. Hill, Esq.
          HELLMICH, HILL & RETTER, LLC
          1049 North Clay
          Kirkwood, MO 63122
          Telephone: (314) 646-1110
          Facsimile: 314-646-1122
          E-mail: blake@hellmichhillretter.com

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dockery Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON DOCKERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION;
CITIZENS TELECOM SERVICES COMPANY, LLC.; and DOES 1-100 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-at-00199 (E.D. Cal., Mar. 9, 2021) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

Plaintiff Dockery was employed by the Defendants as customer
service representative.

Frontier Communications Corporation provides office equipment
repair and maintenance services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
          CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C.
          236 West Portal Avenue, #185
          San Francisco, CA 94127
          Telephone: (805) 618-2924
          Facsimile: (805) 618-2939
          E-mail: christina@chumphreylaw.com

               -and-

          James A. Clark, Esq.
          Renee P. Ortega, Esq.
          Ariel A. Pytel, Esq.
          TOWER LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
          11335 Gold Express Drive, Ste. 105
          Gold River, CA 95670
          Telephone: (916) 233-2008
          E-mail: james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com


FUBOTV INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of April 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against FuboTV, Inc. ("Fubo" or the "Company") (NYSE:
FUBO) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
and docketed under 21-cv-01641, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise, acquired common shares of Fubo stock between March 23,
2020 and January 4, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violation of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased FuboTV securities during the
Class Period, you have until April 19, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Fubo is a multichannel video programming distributor ("vMVPD"),
offering subscribers access to thousands of live sporting events as
well as news and entertainment content. Fubo's platform allows
customers to access content through streaming devices, and on
SmartTVs, mobile phones, tablets and computers. It streams its
services to United States, Canada and Spain. In its regulatory
filings and public statements, Fubo positions itself as a content
distributor at the intersection of three "megatrends":
cord-cutting, connected TV advertising, and online sports wagering.
Fubo revenues are almost entirely derived from the sale of
subscription services and advertising in the United States.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants disseminated false and
misleading statements that misrepresented Fubo's financial health
and its operating condition. These misleading statements included
representations relating to a variety of Fubo's business operations
and performance metrics, including, among others, Fubo's ability to
grow subscription levels and future profitability, seasonality
factors, cost escalations and potentially shrinking addressable
market, ability to attract and generate advertising revenue, the
Company's valuation, and its prospects of entering the arena of
online sports wagering. For example, one of the Company's
unrealistic promises included courageous claims of the Company's
plans to scale its sport wagering business by, among other things,
acquiring Balto Sports, which significantly inflated the price of
Fubo securities, and also created a false basis for its valuation
and revenue projections. In reality, the Company's prospects of
scaling the sports wagering business was far from realistic given
its size and market share, a fact that investors were never
apprised of. As some analysts later described Fubo's strategy, it
amounted to "putting a lipstick on a pig."

Investors learned the truth gradually through a series of research
reports beginning on December 23, 2020. Those reports revealed,
among others things, that (i) Fubo's growth in subscriber and
profitability was unsustainable past the one-time seasonal surge;
(ii) Fubo's offering of products would be subject to cost
escalation; (iii) Fubo could not successfully compete and perform
as sports book operator and could not capitalize on its online
sports wagering opportunity; (iv) Fubo's data and inventory was not
differentiated to allow Fubo to achieve its long-term advertising
growth goals; (v) Fubo's valuation was overstated in light of its
total revenue and subscription levels; and (vi) the acquisition of
Balto Sports did not provide the stated synergies and internal
expertise, and did not expand the Company's addressable market into
sports wagering.

Upon the publication of the research reports, the price of Fubo
securities declined 54% from a close of $52.59 on December 23, 2020
to a close of $24.24 on January 4, 2021.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]


FUYAO GLASS: Walker BIPA Class Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANDREW WALKER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FUYAO GLASS ILLINOIS, INC., Case No.
2021CH6, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Macon
County to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
Illinois on March 12, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-02050-CSB-EIL to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting, storing,
and using the biometric information of its employees without proper
consent.

Fuyao Glass Illinois, Inc. is a glass manufacturer in Decatur,
Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         David K. Haase, Esq.
         Daniel Y. Kim, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 372-5520
         E-mail: dhaase@littler.com
                 dkim@littler.com

GARDAWORLD CASHLINK: Kalb BIPA Class Suit Goes to C.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRIS KALB, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GARDAWORLD CASHLINK LLC, Case No.
2021L0000014, was removed from the Circuit Court of McLean County,
Illinois, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of Illinois on March 16, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01092-JBM-JEH to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting, storing,
and using the fingerprints of its employees, including the
Plaintiff, without informed written consent.

GardaWorld CashLink LLC is a cash services company with its
principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Mark L. Shapiro, Esq.
         Phillip M. Schreiber, Esq.
         Kelly D. DeWitt, Esq.
         HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
         150 N. Riverside Plaza, Ste. 2700
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 263-3600
         Facsimile: (312) 578-6666
         E-mail: mark.shapiro@hklaw.com
                 phillip.schreiber@hklaw.com
                 kelly.dewitt@hklaw.com

GEICO CASUALTY: Class Status Bid Filing Due September 1
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MILIND DESAI v. GEICO
CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02327-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge J. Philip Calabrese entered an amended calendar order as
follows:

   Class Certification Discovery                March 18, 2021
   Cutoff:

   The Plaintiff's Disclosure of                April 19, 2021
   Experts for Class Certification:

   The Defendant's Disclosure of                June 3, 2021
   Experts for Class Certification:

   The Depositions of Experts to                August 2, 2021
   be complete: March

   Motion for Class Certification due:          September 1, 2021

   Response to Motion for Class                 October 18, 2021
   Certification due:

   Reply due:                                   November 17, 2021

Geico operates as an insurance company. The Company offers auto,
motorcycle, home, renters, flood, life, general liability, travel,
and business insurance services.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tCVLg3at no extra charge.[CC]


GENERAL MOTORS: Cars Have Generation IV Engine Defects, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIM NAUMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 3:21-cv-05150 (W.D. Wash., March 1, 2021) is a
class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff seeking damages and
equitable relief individually and on behalf of the other Class
members, each of whom purchased or leased one or more model year
2011–2014 GM vehicles fitted with GM's defective Generation IV
5.3 Liter V8 Vortec 5300 12 LC9 engines (the "Generation IV Vortec
5300 Engines"), pursuant to the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, and
Washington Consumer Protection Act.

GM made the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine available as an engine
option in the following vehicles (Class Vehicles):

   --Chevrolet Avalanche;
   --Chevrolet Silverado;
   --Chevrolet Suburban;
   --Chevrolet Tahoe;
   --GMC Sierra;
   --GMC Yukon; and
   --GMC Yukon XL

The Plaintiff contends that the Class Vehicles were engineered to
fail. GM failed to disclose the truth about these vehicles and
failed to remedy the well-established defects in the Class Vehicles
that were on the road.

The Class Vehicles are equipped with defective Generation IV Vortec
5300 Engines, which, because of the Oil Consumption Defect, are
designed so as to consume prematurely an abnormally large amount of
oil, resulting in low oil levels, reduced lubricity, and engine
damage. The Oil Consumption Defect and the problems arising
therefrom are exacerbated by the defective Oil Life Monitoring
System on each of the Class Vehicles that fails to advise drivers
of a decreased oil level in their Class Vehicle until it is at a
chronically low level, the Plaintiff alleges.

General Motors is an American multinational corporation
headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and
distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial
services, with global headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance
Center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          Kaleigh N. Powell, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, Washington 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
                  kpowell@tousley.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          ICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
                  dferri@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III , Esq.
          H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
          J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          272 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, Al 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          E-mail: Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com
                  Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com

GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORRUGATED LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02151 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 9, 2021) is an action
against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours,
minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Plaintiff Diaz was employed by the Defendant as operator.

Georgia Pacific Corrugated LLC manufactures corrugated packaging.
The company's products include paper cups, plates, dishes, and
utensils. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
          Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  kbates@schneiderwallace.com


GLOBE LIFE: Berry Suit vs. American Income Life Insurance Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Globe Life Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class action
suit entitled, Berry, et al v. American Income Life Insurance
Company, et al., has been stayed.

On February 27, 2020, putative collective action litigation was
filed against American Income in United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania (Berry, et al v. American
Income Life Insurance Company, et al, Case No. 2:20-cv-00110-LPL).


The plaintiffs, former insurance sales agents of American Income,
are pursuing relief on behalf of "all individuals who trained to
become and/or worked as sales agents/insurance producers for
American Income Life Insurance" in the three years prior to the
filing of the complaint. The lawsuit alleges that agent trainees
and insurance agents should have been classified as employees.

It asserts a national collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act seeking compensation for minimum wage, overtime,
expense reimbursement, missed meal and rest breaks, recoupment of
certain commissions and improper recordkeeping.

In addition, the lawsuit asserts a class action under the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law seeking similar relief. Plaintiffs also seek
liquidated damages and attorney's fees, and assert an unjust
enrichment claim.

On September 20, 2020, American Income's motion to compel
arbitration of the plaintiffs' individual claims was granted.

The litigation is stayed pending outcome of the individual
arbitrations.

Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation), incorporated on
November 29, 1979, is an insurance holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides a range of life and health
insurance products and annuities to a base of customers. The
Company's segments include life insurance, health insurance,
annuities and investment. The life insurance segment includes
traditional and interest-sensitive whole life insurance as well as
term life insurance. Effective August 8, 2019, Torchmark
Corporation changed its corporate name to Globe Life Inc. The
company is based in McKinney, Texas.

GLOBE LIFE: Settlement in Joh & Hamilton Suits Granted Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Globe Life Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that on January 7, 2021, the
plaintiff's motion for final settlement approval was granted and a
final judgment was entered on the same day.

On September 12, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income in California's Contra Costa County
Superior Court (Joh v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case
No. C18-01863).

An amended complaint was filed on October 18, 2018. American Income
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Case No. 3:18-cv-06364-TSH).

A second amended complaint was filed on May 20, 2019. The
plaintiffs, former insurance sales agents of American Income, sued
on behalf of all current and former trainees and sales agents who
sold insurance for American Income in the State of California for
the four years prior to the filing of the complaint.

The second amended complaint alleged that such individuals were
employees and asserted claims under the California Labor Code,
California Business and Professions Code, and California Private
Attorney General Act.

The complaint sought compensatory damages, penalties and attorney
fees on claims for failure to pay wages/commissions, failure to
appropriately pay agents at termination, failure to provide
itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse expenses,
misclassification and unfair business practices.

On October 18, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against Torchmark Corporation and American Income in California's
Los Angeles County Superior Court (Golz v. American Income Life
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 18STCV01354). American Income
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California (Case No. 2:18-cv-09879 R (SSx)).

An amended complaint was filed on February 5, 2019. On February 6,
2019, Torchmark Corporation was dismissed without prejudice and the
case proceeded with respect to American Income.

On April 2, 2019, the District Court granted American Income's
motion to dismiss four of the five causes of action asserted. The
amended complaint's remaining claim alleges that plaintiff, as an
American Income insurance agent trainee in California, was an
employee who should have been compensated accordingly.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individuals in
California who trained to contract as American Income agents and
who subsequently worked as contracted agents.

The class period is alleged to begin four years prior to the
complaint's filing. The complaint seeks restitution under the
California Business and Professions Code for alleged unfair
business practices such as failure to pay minimum wage and
overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and failure to
reimburse business expenses. The lawsuit is currently stayed.

On December 14, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income in United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Hamilton v. American Income Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 4:18-cv-7535-KAW). An amended complaint
was filed on January 23, 2019.

The plaintiffs, former insurance sales agents of American Income,
sued on behalf of all current and former trainees and sales agents
who sold insurance for American Income in the State of California
for the last four years prior to the filing of the complaint. The
lawsuit alleges that putative class members were employees and
asserted claims under the California Labor Code, California
Business and Professions Code, and California Private Attorney
General Act.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties and attorney
fees on claims for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime,
failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to appropriately
pay agents at termination, failure to provide itemized wage
statements, failure to reimburse expenses, misclassification and
unfair business practices.

With respect to the related cases above, on August 6, 2020, the
plaintiffs in the Joh and Hamilton Actions jointly moved for
preliminary approval of a settlement of all class and
representative claims, which broadly covers "all individuals who
trained to become and/or worked as sales agents in California for
Defendant during the last four years prior to the filing of the
original Complaint in Joh and whose training and/or work began
before August 16, 2019."

Plaintiffs' preliminary motion anticipated that the proposed
settlement would resolve all claims in the Joh and Hamilton
Actions, and in doing so, encompass pending claims asserted in the
Golz Action for the settlement period. On August 21, 2020, the
Northern District of California granted the Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement and scheduled a hearing for
final approval of the settlement.

On January 7, 2021, the plaintiffs' motion for final settlement
approval was granted and a final judgment was entered on the same
day.

Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation), incorporated on
November 29, 1979, is an insurance holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides a range of life and health
insurance products and annuities to a base of customers. The
Company's segments include life insurance, health insurance,
annuities and investment. The life insurance segment includes
traditional and interest-sensitive whole life insurance as well as
term life insurance. Effective August 8, 2019, Torchmark
Corporation changed its corporate name to Globe Life Inc. The
company is based in McKinney, Texas.

GREAT NECK : Onofre, et al. Seek to Recover Proper OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO ONOFRE, OLIVER CIFUENTES, ROXANA ASCENCIO, and DANILO REYES,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated V.
GREAT NECK SPECIALTY FOOD INC. d/b/a SHOP DELIGHT, and EDWARD
YAKUBOYV, and MEL KARAMIKOGLU, as individuals, Case No.
2:21-cv-01050 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2021) seeks to recover damages
for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage
and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiffs' employment at
Defendants' restaurant.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants willfully failed to pay
them overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week at a wage rate of one and a half times the regular wage, to
which they were entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

Great Neck Specialty Food is in the Grocery stores business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591

GROUP HEALTH: Fails to Provide Patients' Health Records, Says Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
William Findling, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Group Health Plan, Inc. d/b/a HealthPartners,
and Regions Hospital, Case No. 27-CV-21-3052 (Minn. 4th Judicial
Dist. Ct., Hennepin Cty., March 16, 2021), is brought against the
Defendant for their failure to timely provide health care records
to its patients in violation of the Minnesota law.

Access to personal health information is a fundamental right.
Minnesota law recognizes this right and requires healthcare
providers to give their patients access to this information in a
way that is inexpensive and convenient within 30 calendar days of a
request. Minnesota law has established a straightforward process
that allows patients to request and obtain their medical records
under the Minnesota Health Records Act ("MHRA"). Healthcare
providers are well aware of this process, and they are legally
required to follow the process set forth in the MHRA when a patient
submits a request for his or her medical records.

A negligently injured patient has a legal right to pursue
compensation from the responsible healthcare provider through the
civil justice system. Healthcare providers, however, can prevent
patients from asserting their rights by denying or delaying access
to personal health information. This conduct is illegal, unfair,
and wrong. Regrettably, the Defendant has engaged in unlawful and
unethical conduct by failing to timely provide health care records
to its patients. The Defendant often erects barriers to providing
this information to their patents in direct violation of Minnesota
law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff William Findling is a resident of Madison,
Wisconsin.

HealthPartners owns and operates a broad spectrum of health care
services and facilities in Minnesota. Its operations include
hospitals, urgent care centers, primary and specialty care clinics,
pharmacies, and dental clinics, among others. HealthPartners owns
and operates Regions Hospital.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon E. Thompson, Esq.
          Barry M. Landy, Esq.
          Colin F. Peterson, Esq.
          Rachel L. Barrett, Esq.
          CIRESI CONLIN LLP
          225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-361-8200
          Email: bet@ciresiconlin.com
                 bml@ciresiconlin.com
                 cfp@ciresiconlin.com
                 rlb@ciresiconlin.com


GROUPE SEB: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Jaquez Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON JAQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GROUPE SEB USA, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-02032 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2021) brings this complaint as a
class action against the Defendant for its alleged violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and
a member of a member of a protected class of individuals under the
ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA. The Plaintiff has
been using a popular screen reading software called NonVisual
Desktop Access when using his computer to be able to browse the
internet.

The Plaintiff claims that when he visited the Defendant's Website,
www.all-clad.com, on or around August 2020 with the intent of
browsing and potentially making a purchase, he has encountered
multiple access barriers which denied him access similar to that of
sighted individual. The Website allegedly lacked of a variety of
features and accommodations which effectively barred him from being
able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public
accommodation.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination as a result of its failure to comply
with WCAG 2.1 Guidelines, which would provide the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated blind and visually impaired individuals
access to its Website similar to that of a sighted individuals.

Groupe Seb USA is a kitchen appliance and cookware company that
owns and operates the Website. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Tel: (732) 695-3282
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com


GROUPON INC: Bid to Nix Securities Class Suit in Illinois Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Groupon, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's motion to
dismiss the securities class action suit filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, is pending.

On April 28, 2020, an individual plaintiff filed a securities fraud
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, and in July 2020, another individual
was appointed as lead plaintiff.

The lawsuit covers the time period from July 30, 2019 through
February 18, 2020.

The lead plaintiff alleges that Groupon and certain of its officers
made materially false and/or misleading statements or omissions
regarding its business, operations and prospects, specifically as
it relates to reiterating its full year guidance on November 4,
2019 and the Groupon Select program.

Groupon filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in this matter and
is awaiting a ruling by the court.

Groupon SAID, "We intend to vigorously defend against these
allegations, which we believe to be without merit."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Groupon, Inc., operates online local commerce marketplaces that
connect merchants to consumers by offering goods and services at a
discount in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
internationally. The Company was formerly known as ThePoint.com,
Inc. and changed its name to Groupon, Inc. in October 2008. The
Company was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois. Groupon, Inc. is a subsidiary of The Point, LLC.

GRUBHUB INC: Sznitko Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DENISE SZNITKO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GRUBHUB INC., and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV05078, was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on March 12,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-02260 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California's Unfair Competition Law, the California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, and the California's False Advertising Law by
charging higher delivery fees than represented.

Grubhub Inc. is an American online and mobile prepared food
ordering and delivery platform that connects diners with local
restaurants, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Amy P. Lally, Esq.
         SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
         1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 595-9500
         Facsimile: (310) 595-9501
         E-mail: alally@sidley.com

                - and –

         Stacy Horth-Neubert, Esq.
         Farrah Vazquez, Esq.
         SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
         555 W. 5th Street, Suite 4000
         Los Angeles, CA 90013
         Telephone: (213) 896-6000
         Facsimile: (231) 896-6600
         E-mail: shorthneubert@sidley.com
                 farrah.vazquez@sidley.com

HAAS DOOR: Vogelsong Sues Over Failure to Pay OT & Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RICHARD VOGELSONG, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAAS DOOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00547 (N.D. Ohio, March 9, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a "spider" or general
laborer from on or around November 23, 2015 until his employment
was suddenly terminated on December 23, 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant maintained an unlawful
time rounding policy in which any "punch" that was ten minutes or
less before nearest hour would be rounded up to the nearest quarter
hour. As a result, although the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated general laborers frequently worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek, they were not paid overtime at one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 per
week, he adds.

Allegedly, the Defendant unlawfully terminated the Plaintiff
thereafter he continued to complain about the Defendant's refusal
to pay him sick leave, which he requested under the FFCRA when his
girlfriend was diagnosed as positive for COVID-19. The Defendant's
purported reason for terminating the Plaintiff was a pretext for
retaliation.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action
requesting a declaratory judgment against the Defendant, monetary
damages, an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from continued
unlawful practices, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems
appropriate.

HAAS Door Company is a manufacturer and installer of garage doors
for homes and businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris Wido, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Tel: (216) 291-4744
          Fax: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com


HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Foods Contain Heavy Metals, Galloway Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LYNDA GALLOWAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01067
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2021) is a consumer class action brought
individually by the Plaintiff and on behalf of all persons in the
below-defined proposed Class, all of whom purchased one or more of
certain baby foods manufactured by Hain.

Hain manufactures, markets, advertises, labels, distributes, and
sells baby food products under the brand name Earth's Best
throughout the United States.

Hain states that 'it ensures a high degree of attention to both
ingredient and product quality and safety -- from procuring,
handling, storing, blending, and packaging through distributing
Earth's Best (TM) products to our consumer." Hain further states it
'ensures the best ingredients for our food and ultimately the best
food for your children."

The Plaintiff contends that Hain does not list heavy metals as an
ingredient on the Products' labels nor does it warn of the
potential presence of heavy metals in the Products. Hain also does
not disclose that the ingredients of its supposedly organic
Products contain inorganic arsenic.

Unbeknown to the Plaintiff and members of the Class, and contrary
to the representations on the Products label, the Products contain
heavy metals, which, if disclosed to the Plaintiff and members of
the Class prior to purchase, would have caused the Plaintiff and
members of the Class not to purchase or consume the Products. As a
result, the Products' labeling is deceptive and misleading, the
suit says.

The Plaintiff and the Class, thus bring claims for consumer fraud
and seek damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff Lynda Galloway is a citizen of the State of California.
She purchased the Products, including Earth's Best Organic Whole
Grain Rice Baby Cereal, Earth's Best Organic Butternut Squash Pear
Pouches, and Earth's Best Organic
Sweet Potato Carrot Sunny Day Snack Bars primarily from Target from
around July 2020 to January 2021, until she became concerned about
the presence of heavy metals in February 2021.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK
          FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
          E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com
          camille@cglaw.com

               - and -

          Karen Wilson-Robinson, Esq.
          WILSON & BROWN, PLLC
          2066 Central Park Avenue
          Yonkers, NY 10710
          Telephone: (646) 498-9816
          Facsimile: (718) 425-0573
          E-mail: karen@wilsonbrownlawyers.com

HAITI: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Celestin Suit Over Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ODILON S. CELESTIN, WIDMIR ROMELIEN, MARIE LUCIE ST
VIL, GORETTIE ST VIL, JEANNETTE VALEUS, GUETTY FELIN, HERVE COHEN,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
MICHEL JOSEPH MARTELLY, JOCELERME PRIVERT, JOVENEL MOISE, THE
WESTERN UNION COMPANY, d/b/a Western Union Holdings, Inc., Western
Union Financial Services, Inc., and through other subsidiaries and
affiliates, CARIBBEAN AIR MAIL, INC., d/b/a CAM, UNIBANK, S.A.,
UNITRANSFER USA, INC., UNIGESTION HOLDING, S.A., d/b/a/DIGICEL
HAITI, NATCOM S.A., and THE GOVERNMENT OF HAITI, Defendants, Case
No. 18-CV-7340 (LDH) (PK) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Lashann Dearcy Hall of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
dismissed with prejudice the complaint in its entirety against
Defendants Caribbean Air Mail, Unibank, Unitransfer, Unigestion nd
Western Union.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of putative nation-wide and
state-specific classes, bring claims against Defendants Caribbean
Air Mail, Unibank, Unitransfer, Unigestion Holding, and Western
Union for violations of federal antitrust laws, and various state
laws.

The Plaintiffs allege that in April 2011, Martelly, the
then-President-elect of Haiti, devised a "wide-ranging scheme" to
impose fees and fix prices on money transfers, food remittances,
and international calls made to and from Haiti.  While Martelly is
alleged to be the "principal architect and ringleader" of the
conspiracy, Jocelerme Privert and Jovenel Moise, who each succeeded
Martelly, "adopted as his own the acts and conducts of his
predecessor" and continued in perpetrating the scheme.

The scheme allegedly began before Martelly took the presidential
oath.  According to the complaint, Martelly contacted
elecommunication companies, including Defendant Digicel Haiti, and
requested that they add a $0.05 fee per minute on all phone calls
originating from the United States and Europe.  They agreed.
Martelly also met with money transfer operators and commercial
banks, including Defendants Caribbean Air Mail, Inc., Unibank S.A.,
Unitransfer USA Inc., and Western Union, to strike an
anticompetitive agreement to illegally raise the fee to remit money
to Haiti by $1.50.

Ultimately, the Defendants each colluded with Martelly to draft
three Haitian governmental instruments to effectuate Martelly's
scheme: two circulars issued by the Central Bank of Haiti ("BRH"),
which together imposed a $1.50 fee on money transfers and food
remittances made to Haiti from the United States, Canada, Turks and
Caicos, and the Bahamas; and a presidential order, which mandated a
$0.05 per-minute fee be added to the cost of international phone
calls made into Haiti.

The first circular, known as Circular 98, was issued on May 20,
2011, and imposed "testing, certification, user and inspection
fees" of $1.50 on money transfers into and out of Haiti.  In
particular, under Circular 98, money transfer operators must: (1)
make monthly filings with the BRH of certified copies of reports
detailing the total amounts filed with the regulatory body of the
territories where they are licensed to operate; and (2) collect a
$1.50 fee on money transfers and food remittances.

The second circular, Circular 7, was issued on May 31, 2011.
According to the complaint, Circular 7 was issued to address a term
omitted from Circular 98.  Specifically, Circular 7 provides that
"the fees will be collected at the source from all money transfer
sent and received (cash or in kind) from overseas" and are to be
collected from individuals in the United States, Canada, Turks and
Caicos, and the Bahamas.

On September 14, 2011, Martelly issued the Presidential Order,
which provides that "the floor price for all incoming international
calls is hence forth fixed at US$0.23 per minute."  he Presidential
Order further requires that $0.05 of the $0.23 are to be turned
over to CONATEL, Haiti's telecommunication regulatory agency.
According to Article 3 of the Presidential Order, the purpose of
the $0.05 fee is to help CONATEL fight against telephone fraud.

The Plaintiffs claim that Circulars 98 and 7 and the Presidential
Order "ran afoul of the laws of Haiti" because "only the parliament
may raise taxes and fees for the benefit of the state."
Furthermore, while Martelly "promoted, marketed, advertised and
sold" the Fees to the public as "necessary to finance free
education for impoverished children," Martelly knew that neither
his Presidential Order nor the Circulars contain language "relating
to tax or funding education."  The Defendants aided Martelly in
misleading the public by advertising and collecting the Fees as
lawful taxes levied to fund free education in Haiti.

According to the complaint, a program to fund free education in
Haiti does not exist.  Instead, Martelly allegedly embezzled monies
collected through the Fees with the aid of Defendant Unibank S.A.,
which extended Martelly a $9 million loan to build a beach house as
a means of transferring a portion of the proceeds from the $1.50
wire transfer fee.  In return for their part in the scheme, the
Defendants allegedly retained a portion of the Fees.  And while the
Government of Haiti purports to receive at least an estimated $132
million per year from the Fees, there has been no public accounting
detailing the amount of funds collected and remitted to the Haitian
government nor an explanation of how the funds were used in Haiti
once remitted to the BRH.

The Defendants move pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure to dismiss the case in its entirety under the
act of state doctrine and alternatively, pursuant to the doctrine
of forum non conveniens.

Judge Hall notes that the Circulars and the Presidential Order,
which were allegedly used to perpetuate the scheme, were ratified
by Haiti's government officials.  Circular 98 and Circular 7 were
signed by Governor of the BRH Charles Castel.  The Presidential
Order was signed by then-President Martelly, Prime Minister Joseph
Jean-Max Bellerive, and the Minister of Public Works,
Transportation and Communications Jacques Gabriel.  These
governmental instruments are imbued with a high "level of
formality," and are the exact types of official governmental
instruments contemplated by the Supreme Court as representative of
official government action.

Nonetheless, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to entertain their claims
arguing that because the "very tool used to obtain the funds stolen
from them violated the laws of Haiti," the act of state doctrine
does not apply.

The Judge holds that the Plaintiffs' argument ignores precedent
that prohibits inquiry into the propriety of a sovereign action.
Moreover, he has considered the cases relied upon by the Plaintiffs
in pressing their argument but remains unpersuaded that the inquiry
urged by them is appropriate or that the act of state doctrine is
inapplicable.

In a futile effort to avoid the application of the act of state
doctrine, the Plaintiffs advance two additional arguments, neither
of which the Judge finds persuasive.  First, the Plaintiffs advance
a theory that the Fees charged on American-based customers
attempting to send wire transfers or place international phone
calls to Haiti constitute "conduct outside the United States'
territory that has or is intended to have substantial effect within
its territory."  In other words, according to the Plaintiffs, the
Fees are a taking of property in the United States by the Haitian
government barring the applicability of the act of state doctrine.

The Judge states that to be sure, the act of state doctrine does
not apply to attempts by foreign sovereigns to confiscate property
located in the United States.   However, the scheme at issue does
not mandate the seizure of property held in the United States.
Rather, the Circulars and the Presidential Order, when enacted,
constituted a prospective tax scheme on future money transfers,
food remittances, and international calls from the United States.
Stated another way, the Fees did not, in and of themselves, impair
anyone's existing property right at the time they were imposed.

Second, the Plaintiff advances a theory that the imposition of the
Fees was an act committed in the course of purely commercial
operations, and thus is immune from the act of state doctrine.
However, as the Second Circuit has recently stated, "neither the
Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit has ever concluded that there
is a commercial exception to the act of state doctrine."  And, even
if the commercial exception were to exist, the Judge holds that the
Plaintiff offers no basis to conclude that it would apply to the
Fees levied by the Haitian Government.  In sum, the Defendants have
met their burden of establishing that the act of state doctrine
bars the Plaintiffs' claims.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hall granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss with prejudice.  He dismissed the complaint in
its entirety against Defendants Caribbean Air Mail, Unibank,
Unitransfer, Unigestion Holding, and Western Union.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 10, 2021 Corrected Memorandum
& Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yzx56nwu from
Leagle.com.


HARMONY GOLD: First Seven Silicosis Claims Paid to Miners
---------------------------------------------------------
Tanisha Heiberg, writing for Reuters, reports that the first seven
claims have been paid to miners who contracted the incurable lung
disease silicosis, nearly two years after a landmark class action
settlement by gold producers was given the green light, the trust
managing payments said on Tuesday.

The 5 billion rand ($332 million) class action settlement was
approved by the courts in July 2019 after a long legal battle by
miners to win compensation for illnesses they say they contracted
over decades because of negligence in health and safety.

"We certainly have started processing claims and to date we have
paid seven claims," said Tshiamiso Trust chief operating officer
Tina da Cruz.

The class action -- whose settlement was the most far reaching ever
in South Africa -- was launched in 2012 on behalf of miners
suffering from silicosis, an disease caused by inhaling silica dust
from gold-bearing rocks.

The Tshiamiso Trust acknowledged the delays in payment and said it
had been a challenge to set up the infrastructure needed to pay
benefits to tens of thousands of people.

"The wait since May 2018, and since the establishment of the Trust
in February 2020, has been a source of frustration for our
prospective claimants, many of whom are old, and ill," said the
Tshiamiso Trust's chairperson, professor May Hermanus.

To date 2,402 claims have been lodged and 408 benefit medical
examinations have been carried out on claimants, the trust said.

The companies, which reached the settlement agreement in 2018, are
Harmony Gold, Gold Fields, African Rainbow Minerals,
Sibanye-Stillwater, AngloGold Ashanti and Anglo American.

Silicosis causes shortness of breath, a persistent cough and chest
pains, and it makes sufferers highly susceptible to tuberculosis.
[GN]


HIMS INC: Faces Vaccaro Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID VACCARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HIMS, INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02118 (C.D. Cal., March 9,
2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants
for their alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent unsolicited text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in
-3928 in or about November 2020 in an attempt to promote its
services. The text messages received by the Plaintiff were
allegedly transmitted via an "automatic telephone dialing system."
The Plaintiff asserts that he was never a customer of the
Defendant, never provided his cellular telephone number to the
Defendant for any reason whatsoever, and never provided his "prior
express consent" to the Defendant to receive unsolicited text
messages. In addition, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number
has been added on the National Do-Not-Call Registry well over 30
days prior to the Defendant's initial call.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unsolicited text messages,
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons were harmed by
causing them to incur certain cellular telephone charges or reduced
cellular telephone time for which they previously paid, and by
invading their privacy.

The Plaintiff seeks an injunctive relief prohibiting the
Defendant's unlawful conduct in the future, as well as statutory
and treble damages, and other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

HIMS, Inc. provides prescription medication and wellness supply.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Tel: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


HOME DEPOT: Sandoval Labor Suit Moved From C.D. to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JANELLY SANDOVAL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-00457, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on
March 16, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00461-L-MDD to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay all
wages due at termination and failure to provide accurate wage
statements in violations of the California Labor Code.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is a home improvement retailer located in
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Donna M. Mezias, Esq.
         Lowell B. Ritter, Esq.
         AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
         580 California Street, Suite 1500
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 765-9500
         Facsimile: (415) 765-9501
         E-mail: dmezias@akingump.com
                 lritter@akingump.com

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Marbury Fraud Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyundai Motor
America, et al. The case is captioned as Kesha Franklin Marbury, et
al., v. Hyundai Motor America, et al., Case No.
8:21-cv-00379-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal., Feb. 26, 2021).

The suit arises from fraud-related issues demanding $5 million in
damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney.

The Plaintiffs include Christina Roos, James H. Palmer, John H.
Caro, Ashley Gagas, and James J. Martino.

The Defendants include Hyundai Motor Company, Kia Motors America,
Inc., and Kia Motors Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alison M. Bernal, Esq.
          NYE PEABODY STIRLING HALE AND MILLER LLP
          33 West Mission Street Suite 201
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 963-2345
          Facsimile: (805) 563-5385
          E-mail: alison@nps-law.com

IBM MEDICAL: Fails to Comply SCCAP Terms, K.B. ERISA Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
K.B., by and through his parents and guardians, A.B. and S.B.,
individually, on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. IBM
MEDICAL AND DENTAL BENEFITS PLAN FOR REGULAR FULL-TIME AND REGULAR
PART-TIME EMPLOYEES, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES ("IBM") CORP.,
IBM OFFICE OF THE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR, E. FLEMING AND UNIDENTIFIED
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, IBM MEDICAL BENEFITS TRUST, Case No.
7:21-cv-01737 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2021) seeks remedies for the
Defendants' breach of fiduciary duties under Employment Retirement
Security of Act, arising out of the Defendants' failure to comply
with the terms of the Plan, Special Care for Children Assistance
Plan, and relevant federal law.

The suit further seeks to recover the benefits that have been
wrongfully denied to K.B. and the class he seeks to represent. It
also seeks a court order declaring the Defendants' exclusions,
limitations, policies and practices excluding certain services to
treat developmental mental health conditions to be illegal and
void. The lawsuit further seeks an injunction to prevent any future
or ongoing efforts by Defendants to use and enforce any exclusions,
limitations, policies or practices that impermissibly deny, exclude
or limit beneficiaries’ access to medically necessary NDT, ABA,
psychological or other services to treat developmental mental
health conditions under the Plan. Finally, it seeks to require
Defendants to provide accurate information concerning the
legally-required coverage of NDT, ABA, psychological, and other
services to treat developmental mental health conditions under the
Plan and SCCAP.

K.B., a child diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, seeks to end
the Defendants' standard practice of health coverage discrimination
against K.B. and other enrollees with developmental mental health
conditions, ASD, who need treatment for those conditions. The
Defendants have routinely excluded and limited coverage for
services to treat developmental mental health conditions such as
ASD, including but not limited to: speech, occupational and
physical therapy (speech, occupational and physical therapies to
treat developmental mental health conditions are collectively
referred to as "Neurodevelopmental Therapies" or "NDT"), Applied
Behavior Analysis ("ABA") therapy and other services. Early
diagnosis and intensive provision of medically necessary ABA and/or
NDT services are essential treatments that can dramatically improve
the health and life-long well-being of enrollees with mental health
conditions such as ASD.

The Defendants, however, allegedly exclude all coverage of
medically necessary ABA and NDT services from the Plan for children
with mental health conditions that they assert without specificity,
are developmental in nature (referred to by Plaintiffs herein as
"developmental mental health conditions"). They also deny coverage
of psychological services when sought to diagnose or treat such
developmental mental health conditions.

Plaintiff K.B. is the six-year-old son and dependent of A.B. and
S.B. and resides in Travis County, Texas. K.B. was a beneficiary,
as defined by ERISA.

IBM Medical and Dental Benefits Plan for Regular Full-Time and
Regular Part-Time Employees (Plan) represents that it is an
employee welfare benefit plan under the ERISA. The Plan provides
health benefits for IBM employees and their dependents such as
K.B.

The Defendant IBM is the "Plan Sponsor" and is a named fiduciary
under ERISA. IBM is located in Armonk, New York. The Defendant IBM
Medical Benefits Trust provides some or all of the funding for the
benefits covered under the Plan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jodi F. Bouer, Esq.
          Kimberly Mack Rosenberg, Esq.
          BOUER LAW LLC
          44 Church St.
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone. (917) 797-8033
          E-mail: jbouer@bouerlaw.com
                  kim@bouerlaw.com

               - and -

          Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
          SIRIANNI YOUTZ
          SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
          3101 Western Ave., Suite 350
          Seattle, WA 98121
          Telephone: (206) 223-0303
          E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com

INFINITY Q: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 27 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on March 2 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of mutual fund shares of the Infinity Q
Diversified Alpha Fund (NASDAQ: IQDAX, IQDNX) between December 21,
2018 through February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

All investors who purchased mutual fund shares of the Infinity Q
Diversified Alpha Fund and incurred losses are urged to contact the
firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or
(212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning
the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the mutual fund shares of the
Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund you may, no later than
April 27, 2021, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff
of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn
more about your rights as an investor in the mutual fund shares of
the Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund.

In a response to a United States federal inquiry, Infinity Q
Capital Management announced on February 22, 2020 that it was
shutting down a $1.8 billion mutual fund and that it placed James
Velissaris, its founder and Chief Investment Officer, on leave,
cutting off his access to accounts and trading while hiring an
expert to value the fund's holdings. The firm said it had learned
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is probing
whether Velissaris incorrectly valued complex derivative securities
representing about 20% of the mutual fund's reported value.

Subsequently, on February 23, 2021, the Wall Street Journal
published a report, "Investment Firm Halts Redemptions on $1.8
Billion Fund: Infinity Q Capital Management bans its chief
investment officer from trading after discovering issues valuing
the fund's holdings". The report stated that, "Investment firm
Infinity Q Capital Management LLC asked the Securities and Exchange
Commission to halt redemptions on one of its mutual funds and
forbid its chief investment officer from trading after discovering
issues valuing the fund's holdings."

The article continued to state that, "[t]he fund was unable to
calculate an Net Asset Value ("NAV") on February 19, 2021, and it
is uncertain when the fund will be able to calculate an NAV that
would enable it to satisfy requests for redemptions of fund
shares[.]"

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com

Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]


IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds iRhythm
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC) ("iRhythm") investors that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against iRhythm on behalf of those who purchased or acquired
iRhythm common stock between August 4, 2020 and January 28, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 2, 2021
   
Website:
https://www.ktmc.com/irhythm-technologies-inc-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=irhythm
   
Contact: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453
  Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435
  Toll free (844) 887-9500

According to the complaint, iRhythm is a digital healthcare company
that offers a portfolio of ambulatory cardiac monitoring services
on its platform called the Zio service. iRhythm receives revenue
for its Zio service primarily from third-party payors, which
includes commercial payors and government agencies, such as the
U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"). On August
3, 2020, the CMS issued its Calendar Year 2021 Medicare Physician
Fee Schedule Proposed Rule, which would update payment policies,
payment rates, and other provisions for services to be furnished
under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule on or after January 1,
2021. Kevin M. King, then President and CEO of iRhythm, praised the
impact the proposed rule would have on iRhythm's business and
revenues.

However, the truth began to be revealed on December 1, 2020, when
the CMS issued its final rule, which finalized the codes as
anticipated, but did not finalize national pricing for certain
products and services offered by iRhythm. On December 2, 2020,
iRhythm's common stock opened at $183.00 per share, down from the
December 1, 2020 close of $240.64.

Then on January 29, 2021, Medicare Administrative Contractor,
Novitas Solutions, published actual reimbursement rates under the
CMS's 2021 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. A Baird analyst
commented that these rates were "way lower than" the former codes,
citing one example where iRhythm was previously reimbursed around
$311, but was now receiving just $42.68. Following this news, the
price of iRhythm's common stock closed at $168.42 on January 29,
2021, down approximately 33% from its January 28, 2021 close of
$251.00.

iRhythm investors may, no later than April 2, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com [GN]


JIANPU TECH: Guttentag Slams Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------
Michael Guttentag, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jianpu Technology Inc., David Ye
and Yilu (Oscar) Chen, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01419 (S.D. N.Y.,
February 17, 2021), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Jianpu is an independent open platform for discovery and
recommendation of financial products in China using its proprietary
technology which provides search results and recommendations
tailored to each user's financial needs and credit profile. On
February 16, 2021, Jianpu announced the results of its review into
"transactions carried out by the Credit Card Recommendation
Business Unit" with third-party business entities. Guttentag
alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that
some of the company's transactions carried out by the Credit Card
Recommendation Business Unit involved undisclosed relationships or
lacked business substance that, as a result, Jianpu's revenue and
costs and expenses for fiscal 2018 and 2019 were overstated, and
that there were material weaknesses in Jianpu's internal control
over financial reporting, says the complaint.

On this news, Jianpu's American Depositary Shares price fell $0.60,
or 13%, to close at $3.94 per share on February 16, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Guttentag purchased Jianpu securities and suffered damages as a
result of the federal securities law violations. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      230 Park Ave., Suite 530
      New York, NY 10169
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
      Email: glinkh@glancylaw.com

             - and -

      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      Email: info@glancylaw.com

             - and -

      Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
      1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 914-5007
      Email: info@frankcruzlaw.com


JOHN MULVANEY: Must File Opposition to Class Cert. Bid by Oct. 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONES, et al., v.
MULVANEY, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02132 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge
Beryl A. Howell entered an order extension of time to complete
discovery:

   -- by October 19, 2021, the defendants shall file any
opposition
      to plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and

   -- by November 9, 2021, the plaintiffs shall file any reply in
      support of their motion for class certification.

The nature of suit states civil rights – employment.[CC]


JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarettes to Youth, School District Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC., JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH,
RIAZ VALANI, ALTRIA GROUP, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC, ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01729 (N.D. Cal., March 12, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence and
violations of the Virginia Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen
designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and
sustain addiction and marketed them to vulnerable young population.
JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a
marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products
contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and
safe. The Defendants also targeted the youth market by placing
vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using
influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage
audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people
to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic
and public health crisis, the suit adds.

Scott County Schools is a public school district located in Gate
City, Virginia.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
         Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
         Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
         WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
         4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 701-1100
         Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
         E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
                 jpkieffer@wcllp.com
                 thudson@wcllp.com

                 - and –

         Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
         Brad Honnold, Esq.
         GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
         9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
         Overland Park, KS 66207
         Telephone: (913) 451-3433
         E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
                 bhonnold@gohonlaw.com

                 - and –

         Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
         BEASLEY ALLEN CROW
         METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
         234 Commerce Street
         Montgomery, AL 36103
         Telephone: (334) 269-2343
         E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com

JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LEE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC., JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH,
RIAZ VALANI, ALTRIA GROUP, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC, ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01733 (N.D. Cal., March 12, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence and
violations of Virginia Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen
designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and
sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with
cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL
Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing
scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained
less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The
Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors
without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation.
The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized
campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using
influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage
audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people
to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic
and public health crisis, the suit adds.

Lee County Schools is a public school district in Jonesville,
Virginia.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
         Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
         Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
         WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
         4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 701-1100
         Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
         E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
                 jpkieffer@wcllp.com
                 thudson@wcllp.com

                 - and –

         Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
         Brad Honnold, Esq.
         GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
         9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
         Overland Park, KS 66207
         Telephone: (913) 451-3433
         E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
                 bhonnold@gohonlaw.com

                 - and –

         Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
         BEASLEY ALLEN CROW
         METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
         234 Commerce Street
         Montgomery, AL 36103
         Telephone: (334) 269-2343
         E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com

KASAI NORTH: Underpays Production Associates, Dupree Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
GARY DUPREE, individually and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KASAI NORTH AMERICA, INC., a
Tennessee Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00193 (M.D.
Tenn., March 8, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action
against the Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid
production associate, asserts that although the Defendant required
him and other similarly situated hourly-paid production associates
to clock-in and clock-out to record their compensable time, the
Defendant paid them only for work time from the beginning of their
respective assigned shifts to the ending of their respective
assigned shifts plus any post-shift overtime work. As a result, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated production associates were
not compensated for the pre-shift "off-the-clock" work they
performed. The Plaintiff added that the Defendant failed to
properly and accurately record all their compensable times, thereby
failing to compensate them for such compensable times, including
overtime at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, the Plaintiff adds.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated hourly-paid
production associates, the Plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court
deems just and proper.

Kasai North America, Inc. operates a manufacturing plant located in
Manchester, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
             OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Tel: (901) 754-8001
          Fax: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com


KEURIG DR PEPPER: Pays Settlement Amount in Indirect Buyers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Company paid the
amount in the settlement of the indirect purchasers class
plaintiffs in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation.

Beginning in March 2014, twenty-seven putative class actions
asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief were filed on
behalf of purported direct and indirect purchasers of Keurig Green
Mountain, Inc.'s (KGM)'s products in various federal district
courts.

In June 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted a motion to transfer these various actions, including the
TreeHouse and JBR actions, to a single judicial district for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings (the
"Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation").

Consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser
and indirect purchaser plaintiffs were filed in July 2014.

An additional class action on behalf of indirect purchasers,
originally filed in the Circuit Court of Faulkner County, Arkansas
(Julie Rainwater et al. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.), was
transferred into the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation in November
2015.

In January 2019, McLane Company, Inc. filed suit against KGM
(McLane Company, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.) in the SDNY
asserting similar claims and was also transferred into the
Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation.

These actions are now pending in the SDNY (In re: Keurig Green
Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation).

Discovery in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation commenced in
December 2017.

Separately, a statement of claim was filed in September 2014
against KGM and Keurig Canada Inc. in Ontario, Canada by Club
Coffee L.P., a Canadian manufacturer of single serve beverage pods,
asserting a breach of competition law and false and misleading
statements by Keurig.

In July 2020, KGM reached an agreement with the putative indirect
purchaser class plaintiffs in the Multidistrict Antitrust
Litigation to settle the claims asserted in their complaint for $31
million.

The settlement class consists of individuals and entities in the
United States that purchased, from persons other than KGM and not
for purposes of resale, KGM manufactured or licensed single serve
beverage portion packs during the applicable class period
(beginning in September 2010 for most states).

The court granted approval of the settlement in December 2020, and
the Company paid the settlement amount in January 2021.

Putative class members will now be given notice and the opportunity
to object or opt out of the settlement.

KDP intends to vigorously defend the remaining pending lawsuits
brought by Treehouse, JBR, McLane, the putative direct purchaser
class and Club Coffee. At this time, the Company is unable to
predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the potential loss or range
of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of these lawsuits
or any potential effect they may have on the Company or its
operations.

Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. engages in the brewing system and specialty
coffee businesses in the United States and Canada. The company
sources, produces, and sells coffee, hot cocoa, teas, and other
beverages in K-Cup, Vue, Rivo, K-Carafe, and K-Mug pods brands;
coffee in traditional packaging, including bags and fractional
packs; and other specialty beverages in pods. The company was
founded in 1981 and is based in Waterbury, Vermont. Keurig Dr
Pepper Inc. is a subsidiary of Acorn Holdings B.V.

KF OFFICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPHINE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KF OFFICE LLC d/b/a "At Your Side Home Care
Services," JAMIE FUCHS, and JOHN DOES #1-10, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-01292 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 10, 2021) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Brown was employed by the Defendants as home health
aide.

KF OFFICE LLC offers home health care services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William C. Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          501 Fifth Ave., 15 th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 286-1425
          Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
          E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


KING'S HAWAIIAN: Thompson Coburn Attorneys Discuss Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Bousquet, Esq., and Melissa Gold, Esq., of Thompson Coburn LLP,
in an article for Lexology, report that Hawaiian pizza, punch and
rolls are delicious. That's undisputed. But a recent class action
disputes whether King's Hawaiian rolls are appropriately named
because they are not actually made in Hawaii. This question can be
resolved by looking to federal and state law on product labeling.

King's Hawaiian Rolls raise two primary issues of labeling law, one
related to Federal law and one related to state law: (1) does the
name of the product comply with Federal labeling law on naming
foods; and (2) does the labeling in general comply with Hawaiian
law regulating the use of "made in Hawaii" and other similar origin
label terms.

Federal regulations

Let's turn to Federal law first. The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) is responsible for assuring that most foods sold in the
United States are properly labeled. This applies to foods produced
domestically, as well as foods from foreign countries. The Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and the food-related
provisions of the Fair Packing and Labeling Act are the Federal
laws governing food products under the FDA's jurisdiction.

Federal law requires the principal display panel (i.e. front label)
of packaged food to include a statement of identity, or the product
name (i.e., cookies). The statement of identity is the common or
usual name of the food. If no common or usual name exists, and
there is no specifically defined standard of identity for that
food, then the statement of identity can be either: (1) an
appropriately descriptive term when the nature of the food is
obvious, or (2) a fanciful name commonly used by the public for
such food.

Elsewhere on the packaged food, Federal law requires the name and
place of business of the product's manufacturer, packager or
distributor. Furthermore, packaged food labels are not allowed to
misbrand their packaged foods with a representation that expresses
or implies a false geographical origin of the food.

Hawaii regulations

Now, let's look at applicable Hawaiian law. The Hawaii Department
of Agriculture (HDOA) manages the Made in Hawaii with Aloha
branding program (MIHA). The MIHA branding program was established
to protect the integrity and value of authentic Hawaii branded
products and to identify those products made in Hawaii from
products made elsewhere yet called "made in Hawaii." This means
that Hawaiian state law prohibits producers and sellers from saying
a product is made in Hawaii when it is not. To be considered "made
in Hawaii" under the state law, a product must be manufactured in
Hawaii and have at least 51 percent of its wholesale value added by
manufacture or processing in the state.

King's Hawaiian rolls

Understanding the above regulations, we look at the images of
King's Hawaiian rolls included in the plaintiff's complaint. The
plaintiff's key issue with the packaging is the language paying
homage to the company's origins: "Est. 1950 Hilo, Hawaii." The flaw
with plaintiff's argument is that the package clearly displays
"Manufactured by King's Hawaiian Baker West, Inc. . . . in
Toorance, CA." Furthermore, plaintiff's complaint includes the
images of nine other companies' Hawaiian rolls packaging. The
inclusion of such images provides fuel for a strong defensive
argument that "Hawaiian rolls" is indeed a fanciful name commonly
used by the public for such food. As such, a reasonable consumer
would not automatically conflate the Hawaiian style food product
with Hawaiian origins. One could even spin plaintiff's argument out
to the nonsensical: would regulations require Texas Toast only be
from Texas, French Fries only be from France, Italian Bread only be
from Italy or Moon Pies only be from the Moon?

Since the King's Hawaiian case is pending, we can also look to
similar federal cases which applied the "reasonable consumer"
standard of federal law to understand the likely outcome for
Hawaiian labeled products. The term "Hawaiian" was not deemed a
general claim of superiority, nor a generalized boast or statement
of opinion." Maeda v. Kennedy Endeavors, Inc., (holding a
"reasonable consumer would not be misled into believing that the
Hawaiian Snacks originate from Hawai'i due to the mere inclusion of
the word "Hawaiian" plus Hawai'i-related imagery on the snacks'
packaging.") Furthermore, the Made in Hawaii law does not apply to
King's Hawaiian. First, King's Hawaiian does not use the Made in
Hawaii symbol. Second, federal courts have held that under Hawaii
law, a consumer does not have a private cause of action under HRS
§ 486-119.

Understanding litigation precedent and the full circumstances of
your brand's packing are essential to ward off class action
liability. [GN]


KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Hobbs Seek Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tavares Hobbs, Ricardo Bell, and Robert Shaw, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Knight-Swift
Transportation Holdings, Inc. and Swift Transportation Co. of
Arizona, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01421 (S.D. N.Y., February
17, 2021), seeks to recover all unpaid wages, including minimum
wages, straight time and overtime compensation, penalties,
liquidated damages arising from Knight-Swift's denial of minimum
wage, straight time and overtime compensation, among other
violations of the New York Labor Law.

Knight-Swift is a trucking company based in Arizona. Knight-Swift
has employed Plaintiffs as over-the-road truck drivers. Drivers
work away from home for days and often weeks on end hauling freight
in long-haul semis, either alone, or as part of a two-driver team.
Plaintiffs allege that Knight-Swift's policy and practice is to
compensate its drivers with a per-mile piece rate that only covers
time spent driving and does not pay for time logged as "off duty"
or for the time they spent. Plaintiffs contend that the times they
spend resting on the road are to be compensated which they claim
amounts to over 100 hours per week. [BN]

Fuentes is represented by:

      John J. Nestico, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
      6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200
      Charlotte, NC 28210
      Tel: (510) 740-2946
      Fax: (415) 421-7105
      Email: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com

             - and -

      Joshua Konecky, Esq.
      Nathan Piller, Esq.
      Sarah McCracken, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
      2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
      Emeryville, CA 94608
      Tel: (415) 421-7100
      Fax: (415) 421-7105
      Email: jkonecky@schnedierwallace.com
             ljoyner@schneiderwallace.com
             npiller@schneiderwallace.com
             smccracken@schneiderwallace.com


LA JOLLA GROUP: Denial of Wilson's Class Cert. Bid Partly Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MOSANTHONY WILSON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v.
THE LA JOLLA GROUP, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. D077134
(Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth
District, Division One, reversed in part and affirmed in part the
trial court's order denying class certification.

Plaintiffs Mosanthony Wilson and Nancy Urschel brought a putative
wage-and-hour class action against Defendant LJG.  The Plaintiffs
worked for LJG as signature gatherers on behalf of political
campaigns and political action committees.  LJG classified them as
independent contractors and paid them per signature submitted.

The Plaintiffs alleged that, as a consequence of this
misclassification, LJG did not comply with various provisions of
the Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
("IWC") wage order governing the terms and conditions of the
signature gatherers' employment.

On behalf of themselves and a putative class of LJG signature
gatherers, the Plaintiffs alleged causes of action for (1) failure
to pay employees a minimum wage for all hours worked (Lab. Code,
Sections 1194, 1197, 1197.1), (2) failure to pay overtime (id.,
Section 1198), (3) failure to provide meal and rest breaks (id.,
Section 226.7), (4) failure to timely pay final wages upon
termination or resignation (id., Sections 201, 202), (5) failure to
provide written and accurate itemized wage statements (id., Section
226, subd. (a)), and (6) failure to reimburse employees for
necessary expenditures (id., Sections 2800, 2802).  They also
alleged a cause of action under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL;
Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200, et seq.) based on these
violations.  They sought damages, penalties, restitution, and
attorney fees, among other relief.

The Plaintiffs moved for certification of a class consisting of all
individuals who worked for LJG as signature gatherers in California
at any time from Sept. 14, 2014 through the date of class
certification.

In a tentative ruling, the trial court stated its intention to deny
the motion for class certification on the grounds that the
Plaintiffs had not shown that common questions of fact or law
predominate or that class treatment was superior.  At the hearing,
the trial court noted that misclassification was "one issue" but
there were others.  Signature gatherers worked all over the state,
at different wage rates, there were no time records, and
"everybody's got a different story."  After hearing argument, the
court confirmed its tentative ruling.  In a subsequent order, the
court reiterated its grounds for denial and repeated its comments
from the hearing.

Soon after, the Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration.  hey argued
that two recently-published appellate opinions constituted "new
law" requiring reconsideration because they allegedly conflicted
with the order.  LJG opposed.

In a tentative ruling, the court noted that the California Supreme
Court had recently granted review of both opinions.  The opinions
were therefore no longer binding on the trial court.  In the trial
court's view, the opinions were not new law for purposes of
reconsideration.  At the hearing, the court confirmed its
tentative.  The court does not appear to have filed a formal minute
order denying reconsideration.

The Plaintiffs appeal the order denying class certification.  They
contend the trial court erred by finding common questions did not
predominate and the class action procedure was not superior to
individual actions.  They also contend the court erred by not
granting a related motion for reconsideration.

The Court of Appeals agrees on the current record that the trial
court erred by declining to certify a class for one cause of
action, for failure to provide written and accurate itemized wage
statements.   First, because the Plaintiffs did not identify a
common policy or practice requiring overtime or denying meal and
rest breaks, which could be proved by common evidence, the trial
court could properly deny class certification.  Second, LJG has a
uniform policy of not providing signature gatherers with itemized
wage statements.  Hence, class treatment of the Plaintiffs'
itemized wage statement claim may present problems of manageability
or superiority that the trial court, in its discretion, may find
compelling.

The Court of Appeals also reviews the court's order denying
reconsideration for abuse of discretion.  It finds that the
Plaintiffs have not shown an abuse of discretion.  The trial court
was not required to find that Gonzales v. San Gabriel Transit, Inc.
(2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1131, 1163, review granted, and Naranjo v.
Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 444, review
granted, were "new law" for purposes of reconsideration.  Both
relied on longstanding class certification principles.  And, they
were factually dissimilar to the dispute before the court.

While the Plaintiffs are correct that the Supreme Court's grant of
review did not preclude a finding that Gonzales and Naranjo were
new law, the Court of Appeals finds they have not shown the court
was required to make such a finding.  Nor have they substantiated
their claim that the trial court was required to "explain why it
did not find Gonzales and Naranjo persuasive."  They have not
established reversible error.  It therefore affirms the order
denying reconsideration, to the extent it is not mooted by its
partial reversal of the underlying class certification order.

The Court of Appeals reversed in part the order denying class
certification as to the Plaintiffs' wage statement claim under
Labor Code section 226.  The trial court will reconsider
certification for this claim and conduct further proceedings
consistent with the Opinion.  In all other respects, the order
denying class certification is affirmed.  The Plaintiffs' challenge
to the order denying reconsideration is moot as to the wage
statement claim, but the order is otherwise affirmed.  The parties
will bear their own costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/vxpmpz8w from Leagle.com.

Parris Law Firm, R. Rex Parris -- rparris@parrislawyers.com --
Kitty K. Szeto -- kszeto@parrislawyers.com -- John M. Bickford --
jbickford@parrislawyers.com -- Ryan A. Crist --
rcrist@parrislawyers.com -- and Alexander Wheeler, for Plaintiffs
and Appellants.

Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester, Kenneth Kawabata --
ksk@manningllp.com -- Tonya N. Mora -- tnm@manningllp.com -- and
Ladell Hulet Muhlestein -- lhm@manningllp.com -- for Defendant and
Respondent.


LEO'S BAGELS: Salas Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS SALAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LEO'S BAGELS HANOVER SQUARE LLC (D/B/A LEO'S BAGELS),
RONNIE RAHMAN, LORENZO DOE, and ADAM POMERANTZ, Case No.
1:21-cv-01728 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2021) seeks unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the New York Labor Law as well as the "spread of hours" and
overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Plaintiff contends that he regularly worked for the Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime or spread of hours compensation for any of the hours that
he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
records of his hours worked and failed to pay him appropriately for
any hours worked over 40 either at the straight rate of pay or for
any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to
pay him the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he
had to work over 10 hours a day, he adds.

Plaintiff Salas was employed as a delivery worker at the
Defendants' restaurant.

The Defendants operate a bagel restaurant located in the Financial
District section of Manhattan in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com

LIBERTY MUTUAL: H Lodge Sues Over Refusal to Honor Insurance Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
H LODGE LLC, a Washington limited liability company, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin company, Case No. 3:21-cv-05184-BHS
(W.D. Wash., March 16, 2021), is brought to recover damages for
Washington businesses caused by the Defendant's refusal to provide
coverage for damages and losses sustained by Washington businesses
as a result of governmental orders that have either closed or
significantly limited the operations of those Washington
businesses.

The insurance was obtained to protect Plaintiff's business and its
business income, among other things. Liberty issued to Plaintiff an
"all risk" insurance policy (the "Policy"). The Plaintiff paid, and
the Defendant accepted, all premiums as they became due. The Policy
constitutes a valid and enforceable contract between Plaintiff and
the Defendant. The Policy promises to pay the Plaintiff for all
risks of direct physical loss or damage to covered property, and
includes, among others, Business Income coverage and Extra Expense
coverage.

In January 2020, the United States of America saw its first cases
of people infected with COVID-19. Beginning in March 2020, the
Plaintiff was forced to suspend, in whole or in part, its business
operations due to certain orders and directives issued by
Washington Governor Jay Inslee and local civil authorities which,
among other things, restricted access to and operation of the
Plaintiff's business, limited groups of people, curtailed travel,
and generally limited commercial activity, each and all of which
caused Plaintiff to suffer loss or damage (the "Orders"). As a
direct result of the Orders, the Plaintiff was unable to operate
its businesses, in whole or in part, while the Orders remained in
effect.  As a result, the Plaintiff's business property cannot be
used for its intended purposes and its business activities have
necessarily been suspended or interrupted. The Plaintiff sustained
direct physical loss or damage caused by the Orders.

Despite the Policy language and the coverage it promises, the
Defendant refuses to acknowledge that "loss" and "damage" refer to
distinct harms, resulting in additional protection for the
Plaintiff's loss and damage directly, efficiently, and proximately
caused by the Orders. As a result, the Plaintiff has experienced
and will continue to experience loss or damage covered by the
Policy, and continued harm naturally and foreseeably occurring as a
result of the Defendant's refusal to accept coverage and pay for
Plaintiff's covered loss and damage. Contrary to the coverage
provisions in their insurance policies, and in violation of
Washington law, the Defendant has universally denied coverage to
the Plaintiff and has refused to honor the contractual obligations
the Defendant has under the policies, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff H LODGE LLC owns and operates a hotel commonly known
as Heathman Lodge and a restaurant commonly known as Hudson's Bar &
Grill.

The Defendant is a Wisconsin insurance company having its principal
place of business in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle A. Sturm, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Thede, Esq.
          FOREMAN STURM & THEDE LLP
          P.O. Box 13098
          Portland, OR 97213
          Phone: 503.206.5824
          Email: kyle.sturm@foremansturm.com
                 nick.thede@foremansturm.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Kahl, Esq.
          NICK KAHL LLC
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 400
          Portland, OR 97204
          Phone: (971) 634-0829
          Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
          Email: nick@nickkahl.com

               - and -

          Craig Lowll, Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB LLC
          The Kress Building,
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 809-7707
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
          Email: clowell@wigginschilds.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: North Pacific Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NORTH PACIFIC MANAGEMENT, INC., an Oregon corporation (dba Hudson's
Hospitality Group, dba Coho Services, and dba North Pacific
Management); AIRPORT INN LLC, an Oregon limited liability company
(dba Lakeside Bar & Grill & Lakeside Café, dba Radisson Hotel
Portland Airport, and dba Airport Inn); BPS ASSOCIATES, LLC, an
Oregon limited liability company (dba BPS Associates, dba Mountain
Park Racquet Club, dba, Timberline Properties, dba West Hills
Racquet Club, and dba Central Eugene Industrial Park); BEAN &
COMPANY, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company; COHO.RES, LLC
fka COHO.RES-OR LLC, an Oregon limited liability company; HEATHMAN
GARAGE ASSOCIATES, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company (dba
Southpark Garage); JBH PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS, LLC, an Oregon
limited liability company (dba Red Lion Hotel on the River, and dba
Rodeway Inn); SUNTEK PARK, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company
(dba Suntek Office Park, dba Suntek Park Company, and dba Cornell
Center); TFBP HOLDINGS, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company
(dba Jantzen Beach Restaurant, dba Jantzen Beach Bar and Grill, and
dba Jantzen Beach Cafe); and TRIPLE S ENTERPRISES, INC., a
Washington limited liability company (dba Southpark Seafood, and
dba Southpark Seafood Grill & Wine Bar), individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Wisconsin company, Case No. 3:21-cv-00404-HZ (D. Ore.,
March 16, 2021), seeks to recover damages for Oregon businesses
caused by the Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company's
refusal to provide coverage for damages and losses sustained by
Oregon businesses as a result of governmental orders that have
either closed or significantly limited the operations of those
Oregon businesses.

The Plaintiff North Pacific was authorized to and did procure
insurance from Liberty on behalf of all named Plaintiffs in this
litigation. The insurance was obtained to protect each of the
Plaintiffs' business and their business income, among other things.
Liberty issued to Plaintiffs an "all risk" insurance policy
effective at all relevant times alleged in this complaint (the
"Policy"). The Plaintiffs paid, and Defendant accepted, all
premiums as they became due. The Policy constitutes a valid and
enforceable contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant. The
Policy promises to pay Plaintiff s for all risks of direct physical
loss or damage to covered property, and includes, among others,
Business Income coverage and Extra Expense coverage.

In January 2020, the United States of America saw its first cases
of people infected with COVID-19. Beginning in March 2020, the
Plaintiffs were forced to suspend, in whole or in part, their
business operations due to certain orders and directives issued by
Oregon Governor Kate Brown and local civil authorities which, among
other things, restricted access to and operation of the Plaintiff's
business, limited groups of people, curtailed travel, and generally
limited commercial activity, each and all of which caused Plaintiff
to suffer loss or damage (the "Orders"). As a direct result of the
Orders, the Plaintiffs were unable to operate their businesses, in
whole or in part, while the Orders remained in effect. As a result,
the Plaintiffs' business property cannot be used for its intended
purposes and their business activities have necessarily been
suspended or interrupted. The Plaintiffs sustained direct physical
loss or damage caused by the Orders.

Contrary to the coverage provisions in their insurance policies
with the Defendant, and in violation of Oregon law, the Defendant
has universally denied coverage to the Plaintiffs and have refused
to honor the contractual obligations the Defendant has under the
policies, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs operates a property management company in Oregon.

The Defendant is a Wisconsin insurance company having its principal
place of business in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle A. Sturm, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Thede, Esq.
          FOREMAN STURM & THEDE LLP
          P.O. Box 13098
          Portland, OR 97213
          Phone: 503.206.5824
          Email: kyle.sturm@foremansturm.com
                 nick.thede@foremansturm.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Kahl, Esq.
          NICK KAHL LLC
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 400
          Portland, OR 97204
          Phone: (971) 634-0829
          Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
          Email: nick@nickkahl.com

               - and -

          Craig Lowll, Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB LLC
          The Kress Building,
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 809-7707
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
          Email: clowell@wigginschilds.com


LOUISIANA: La. App. Flips Judgment Certifying Class in Allen Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH ALLEN, STEVEN AYRES, ASHLEY HURLBURT, RORY
KEVIN GATES, JAMES HOWARD, DEMARCUS MORROW, RODNEY WALLER, KEITH
ARCEMENT, FREDERICK BELL, GENARO CRUZ GOMEZ, SAM YBARRA, MICHAEL
CARTER, & JAMES PARK, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES & ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, ZITA JACKSON ANDRUS, CHRIS L.
BOWMAN, FLOZELL DANIELS, JR., THOMAS D. DAVENPORT, JR., PATRICK J.
FANNING, W. ROSS FOOTE, KATHERINE E. GILMER, MICHAEL C. GINART,
JR., FRANK HOLTHAUS, DONALD W. NORTH, & MOSES JUNIOR WILLIAMS, IN
THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE LOUISIANA PUBLIC
DEFENDER BOARD, & JAMES T. DIXON, JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
THE LOUISIANA STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER, Case No. 2019 CA 0125 (La.
App.), the Court of Appeal of Louisiana for the First Circuit
reverses the judgment of the district court granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On Feb. 6, 2017, the Plaintiffs instituted the action with the
filing of a Verified Petition for Class Certification and for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against the Defendants.  The
Petition named as Plaintiffs 13 individuals who purport to
represent a class of persons similarly situated, i.e., those
"charged with non-capital offenses in Louisiana, and have had
counsel appointed to represent them because they cannot afford the
services of an attorney."  The Plaintiffs subsequently filed a
First Amended Petition for Class Certification and for Declaratory
and Injunctive Relief on Sept. 19, 2017, removing six of the 13
originally named Plaintiffs.

On behalf of the putative class, the Plaintiffs complain in their
Amended Petition that the public defense system in Louisiana fails
to provide effective representation to the poor and that indigent
defendants will be denied the right to counsel until and unless the
structural limitations of the public defender system are removed.
According to the Plaintiffs, these structural limitations include,
"acute lack of resources, endemic conflicts of interest, lack of
independence, unreasonably high workloads, and lack of supervision,
all of which create an impenetrable barrier to effective
representation."

In response to the Plaintiffs' Petition, the Defendants filed
declinatory and peremptory exceptions asserting the objections of
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, no cause of action, and no
right of action.  The Defendants further answered the Petition
asserting various affirmative defenses, including the defense of
qualified immunity under Section 1983.  These exceptions were
overruled by the district court with the Defendants subsequently
seeking the Court's review of the ruling; however, the Court denied
the Defendants' application for supervisory review.

Following the Plaintiffs' Amended Petition, the Defendants again
raised and reasserted the objections of lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, no cause of action, and no right of action, which
were substantively similar to the Defendants' prior exceptions.
Furthermore, they filed a motion for partial summary judgment,
contending there were no material issues of fact that the
Plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief, they have no
liability for violations of the Sixth or Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution, have no liability for violations of
the Louisiana Constitution, and are otherwise entitled to statutory
immunity.

The district court denied the Defendants' exceptions and motion for
partial summary judgment on Jan. 16, 2019.  The Defendants filed an
application for supervisory review, which application was denied by
this court in a separate, unpublished writ action.  
Meanwhile, on May 4, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to
Certify a Class Action.  Thereafter, discovery was conducted, and
the district court held the class certification hearing on June 12,
2018.  Evidence was introduced at the hearing.  After a lengthy
hearing, the district court took the matter under advisement and
the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law.

The district court issued its ruling on the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify a Class Action on Aug. 17, 2018, issuing supplemental
written findings of fact and reasons for judgment on Oct. 11, 2018.
In the separate judgment dated Oct. 11, 2018, the district court
granted the Plaintiffs' Amended Petition and certified the class,
which is defined as "all persons who are indigent and facing
criminal charges punishable by a term of imprisonment brought by
the State of Louisiana, excluding individuals charged with a
capital offense, proceeding pro se, or represented by private
counsel and juveniles whose cases are assigned to Juvenile
Courts."

The Defendants now appeal the judgment of the district court
granting class certification.  In their sole assignment of error,
they contend the district court erred in certifying the class
without conducting a rigorous analysis of the requirements set
forth in Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 591.
Additionally, they argue the Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden
of proof as to each of the factors set forth in La. Code Civ. P.
art. 591(A) and the requirements of La. Code Civ. P. art. 591(B)
and (C).

The Appellate Court first turns to the prerequisite of commonality,
which requires a party seeking class certification to show that
"there are questions of law or fact common to the class."  It finds
the Supreme Court's recent decision in State v. Covington,
2020-00447 (La. 12/1/20), _ So.3d _, 2020 WL 7301278, particularly
instructive in analyzing this specific certification prerequisite.

Therein, the Chief Indigent Defender for the Office of Public
Defender for East Baton Rouge Parish filed a "Motion to Withdraw
from Current Appointments and to Decline Future Appointments,"
alleging "long term chronic underfunding of the public defender's
office had necessitated the implementation of 'service restriction
protocols', leading to the elimination of a number of attorney and
support staff positions."  The district court denied the Chief
Indigent Defender's motion and, on appeal, the Appellate Court
reversed this judgment, finding the Chief Indigent Defender
"presented sufficient evidence to the district court that shows the
appointed public defenders cannot effectively represent their
indigent clients in a manner consistent with their constitutional
and ethical obligations due to excessive caseloads."

In reviewing the district court's dismissal of the Chief Indigent
Defender's motion, the Louisiana Supreme Court restated its
previous holding in State v. Peart, 621 So.2d 780, 788 (La. 1993),
that, "because there is no precise definition of reasonably
effective assistance of counsel, any inquiry into the effectiveness
of counsel must be individualized and fact-driven, which
necessarily involves a detailed examination of the specific facts
and circumstances of the case."  In concluding that "the question
of whether assistance of counsel has been constitutionally
ineffective cannot be answered without a detailed examination of
the specific facts and circumstances of the representation provided
by counsel to the individual defendant," and that any alleged
deprivation of Louisiana Constitution, Article I, Section 13 "can
only be decided on a case-by-case basis," the Louisiana Supreme
Court upheld the district court's dismissal of the Chief Indigent
Defender's motion.

The Appellate Court finds Covington instructive in that, while
utilizing a different procedural vehicle, the arguments of the
Chief Indigent Defender are nearly identical to the Plaintiffs':
Due to a lack of resources, understaffing, and high attorney
workloads, the potential exists for not only current violations of
an individual defendant's constitutional rights, but also future
conflicts of interest and/or violations of an individual
defendant's federal and state constitutional protections.  As such,
Covington, itself and through a reaffirmation of Peart, makes clear
that any inquiry into alleged constitutional defectiveness of an
individual defendant's representation, particularly based on
alleged constitutional defectiveness through insufficient funding
and resources of court-appointed counsel, should be decided on a
"case-by-case" basis and with a "detailed examination of the
specific facts and circumstances of the representation provided by
counsel to the individual defendant."

This reaffirmed, individualized analysis as articulated in
Covington also necessarily causes the commonality requirement of
class certification to fail, in that "commonality requires a party
seeking certification to demonstrate the class members' claims
depend on a common contention, and that common contention must be
one capable of class-wide resolution -- one where the determination
of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to
the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.  Moreover,
Covington not only addresses the commonality requirement of La.
Code Civ. P. art. 591(A)(2), but such a holding also directly
invokes the prohibition of class certification contained in La.
Code Civ. P. art. 591(C): Certification will not be for the purpose
of adjudicating claims or defenses dependent for their resolution
on proof individual to a member of the class.

Based on the recent decision from the Louisiana Supreme Court in
Covington, its reaffirmation of Peart, and the certification
restriction contained in La. Code Civ. P. art. 591(C), the
Appellate Court finds the district court erred in ruling that the
Plaintiffs established the commonality requirement for class
certification as set forth in La. Code Civ. P. art. 591(A)(2).

Turning to the typicality requirement of class certification, as
reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Covington, the Appellate Court
opines that any analysis or review of a particular indigent
defendant's allegation of constitutional violations in connection
with claims of systemic "structural barriers," whether for
retroactive or prospective relief, is an individualized analysis
reserved for the post-conviction relief procedure.  As such, claims
of one class representative will not be typical of all class
members.  What could be ineffective assistance of counsel for one
class representative could simply be poor lawyering for another.
Accordingly, the Appeallte Court finds taht the district court
erred in ruling the Plaintiffs established the typicality
requirement for class certification as set forth in La. Code Civ.
P. art. 591(A)(3).

Finding that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the statutory
requirements of commonality and typicality for class certification,
the Appellate COurt pretermits discussion of the remaining
certification factors.

For the foregoing reasons, the Appellate Court finds class
certification inappropriate and reverses the district court's Oct.
11, 2018 judgment granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a
Class Action.  It remands the matter for further proceedings
consistent with its Opinion.  The costs of the appeal are assessed
to plaintiffs, Steven Ayres, Keith Arcement, Frederick Bell,
Michael Carter, and James Park.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2mrzb8nn from Leagle.com.

Thomas P. Owen, Jr. -- tpo@stanleyreuter.com -- Kathryn W. Munson
-- kwm@stanleyreuter.com -- John P. D'Avello --
jpd@stanleyreuter.com -- Metairie, Louisiana, Counsel for
Appellants, John Bel Edwards in his Official Capacity as Governor
of the State of Louisiana, Zita Jackson Andrus, Chris L. Bowman,
Flozell Daniels, Jr., Thomas D. Davenport, Jr., Patrick J. Fanning,
W. Ross Foote, Katherine E. Gilmer, Michael C. Ginart, Jr., Frank
Holthaus, Donald W. North, & Moses Junior Williams, in their
Official Capacities as Members of the Louisiana Public Defender
Board; and James T. Dixon, Jr., in his Official Capacity as the
Louisiana State Public Defender.

Mark A. Cunningham -- mcunningham@joneswalker.com -- New Orleans,
Louisiana -and- Jon Greenbaum, Pro Hac Vice, Washington, District
of Columbia, Counsel for Appellees Joseph Allen, Steven Ayres,
Ashley Hurlburt, Rory Kevin Gates, James Howard, Demarcus Morrow,
Rodney Waller, Keith Arcement, Frederick Bell, Genaro Cruz Gomez,
Sam Ybarra, Michael Carter, & James Park, on Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated.

Chloe M. Chetta -- cchetta@barrassousdin.com -- New Orleans,
Louisiana, Counsel for Amici Curiae American Conservative Union
Foundation Nolan Center for Justice, CATO Institute, Freedomworks
Foundation, The James Madison Institute, R Street Institute,
Innocence Project New Orleans, The Innocence Project, National
Legal Aid & Defender Association, and Public Defender Service for
the District of Columbia.


LOWE'S HOME: Merhi Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSEPH MERHI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-00046199-CU-OE-CTL, was removed
from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
on March 12, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00446-DMS-MDD to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to pay all wages owed, failure to pay overtime,
failure to provide lawful meal periods, failure to authorize and
permit rest periods, failure to timely pay wages due and payable
during employment, failure to pay reporting time pay, failure to
timely pay wages owed upon separation from employment, failure to
furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair business
practices.

Lowe's Home Centers, LLC is a retailer of home improvement,
building materials, and home appliances based in Wilkesboro, North
Carolina. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Michele L. Maryott, Esq.
         Katie M. Magallanes, Esq.
         GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
         3161 Michelson Drive
         Irvine, CA 92612-4412
         Telephone: (949) 451-3800
         Facsimile: (949) 451-4220
         E-mail: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com
                 kmagallanes@gibsondunn.com

                - and –

         Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq.
         GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Telephone: (213) 229-7000
         Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
         E-mail: ksmith@gibsondunn.com

LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Court OK of Investor Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lumen Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the settlement of
the securities investor class claims is subject to court approval

In June 2017, a former employee filed an employment lawsuit against
the company claiming that she was wrongfully terminated for
alleging that the company charged some of its retail customers for
products and services they did not authorize. Thereafter, based in
part on the allegations made by the former employee, several legal
proceedings were filed.

In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a consumer class action, was
filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California alleging that the company charged
some of its retail customers for products and services they did not
authorize. Other complaints asserting similar claims were filed in
other federal and state courts.

The lawsuits assert claims including fraud, unfair competition, and
unjust enrichment. Also in June 2017, Craig. v. CenturyLink, Inc.,
et al., a securities investor class action, was filed in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that
the company failed to disclose material information regarding
improper sales practices, and asserting federal securities law
claims. A number of other cases asserting similar claims have also
been filed.

Beginning June 2017, the company also received several shareholder
derivative demands addressing related topics. In August 2017, the
Board of Directors formed a special litigation committee of outside
directors to address the allegations of impropriety contained in
the shareholder derivative demands. In April 2018, the special
litigation committee concluded its review of the derivative demands
and declined to take further action. Since then, derivative cases
were filed in Louisiana state court in the Fourth Judicial District
Court for the Parish of Ouachita and in federal court in Louisiana
and Minnesota.

These cases were brought on behalf of CenturyLink, Inc. against
certain current and former officers and directors of the Company
and seek damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The consumer class actions, the securities investor class actions,
and the federal derivative actions were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota for coordinated and
consolidated pretrial proceedings as In Re: CenturyLink Sales
Practices and Securities Litigation.

The company received final court approval of its settlement of the
consumer class actions for payments totaling $15.5 million, plus
certain notice and administration costs. Approximately 12,000
potential class members elected to opt out of the class settlement
and may elect to pursue their individual claims against the company
on these issues through various dispute resolution processes,
including individual arbitration. Subject to certain conditions,
the company have agreed to settle claims of approximately 11,000
such class members asserted by one law firm.

Additionally, the company has reached an agreement settling the
securities investor class actions for payment of $55 million, which
the company expects to be paid by its insurers.

The settlement of the securities investor class claims is subject
to court approval.

Lumen Technologies, Inc., headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, is an
integrated communications company that provides an array of
communications services to residential, business, governmental and
customers. In October of 2017, Lumen acquired Level 3, an
international communications company with one of the world's
largest long-haul communications and optical internet backbones.
The company generated approximately $21.2 billion in revenue over
the last 12 months ended September 30, 2020.

LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Houser et al. Appeal Dismissal of Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lumen Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal in the
putative shareholder class action suit entitled, Houser et al. v.
CenturyLink, et al., is pending.

Lumen and certain Lumen Board of Directors members and officers
were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action
lawsuit filed on June 12, 2018 in the Boulder County District Court
of the state of Colorado, captioned Houser et al. v. CenturyLink,
et al.

The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of
former Level 3 shareholders who became CenturyLink, Inc.
shareholders as a result of the company's acquisition of Level 3.

It alleges that the proxy statement provided to the Level 3
shareholders failed to disclose various material information of
several kinds, including information about strategic revenue,
customer loss rates, and customer account issues, among other
items.

The complaint seeks damages, costs and fees, rescission, rescissory
damages, and other equitable relief.

In May 2020, the court dismissed the complaint.

Plaintiffs appealed that decision, and the appeal is pending.

Lumen Technologies, Inc., headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, is an
integrated communications company that provides an array of
communications services to residential, business, governmental and
customers. In October of 2017, Lumen acquired Level 3, an
international communications company with one of the world's
largest long-haul communications and optical internet backbones.
The company generated approximately $21.2 billion in revenue over
the last 12 months ended September 30, 2020.

MAGELLAN HEALTH: Anderson Sues Over Proposed Merger With Centene
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC., STEVEN J. SHULMAN,
SWATI ABBOTT, CHRISTOPHER J. CHEN, KENNETH J. FASOLA, PETER A.
FELD, MURAL R. JOSEPHSON, G. SCOTT MACKENZIE, LESLIE V. NORWALK,
and GUY P. SANSONE, Defendants, Case No. 2021-0202 (Del. Ch., Mar.
9, 2021) is a class action on behalf of the public stockholders of
Magellan Health, Inc. ("Magellan" or the "Company") against
Magellan and the members of Magellan's Board of Directors (the
"Board" or the "Individual Defendants"), for breaches of fiduciary
duties in connection with the Board's efforts to sell the Company
to Centene Corporation ("Centene") through its wholly owned
subsidiary Mayflower Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub") (the "Proposed
Transaction") by means of an unfair process and for an unfair
price.

According to the complaint, on February 19, 2021, the Company filed
a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement")
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC") in connection with the Proposed Transaction that fails to
provide the Company's shareholders with material information and
provides them with materially misleading information thereby
rendering the shareholders unable to make an informed decision on
whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction.

The Individual Defendants have allegedly breached their fiduciary
duties of loyalty and due care. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
Proposed Transaction unless and until defendants cure their
breaches of fiduciary duty, including by waiving any standstill
restrictions that are preventing third parties from making a
topping bid for Magellan.

Magellan Health, Inc. coordinates and manages the delivery of
behavioral healthcare treatment services. The Company provides
services through its contracted network of third-party treatment
providers which includes psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric
hospitals, and residential treatment centers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC
          1204 N. King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 803-4600
          E-mail: rernst@bk-legal.com

               -and-

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
          Alexandra E. Eisig, Esq.
          WEISS LAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025


MARIN AIRPORTER: Removes Bland Suit to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of MAGGIE BLAND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARIN
AIRPORTER, LAWRENCE LEPORTE, and DOES 1-100, Defendants, filed a
notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Marin (Case No. CIV2003640) to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on March 10,
2021.

The clerk of court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01689.

MARIN AIRPORTER provides local and suburban mass passenger
transportation. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kyle L. Schriner, Esq.
          SCHRINER LAW FIRM, PC
          1936 University Ave., Suite 110
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (415) 321-4924
          E-mail:  kyle@schrinerlaw.com


MARK E. COCCHI: Swain Sues Over Wrongful Termination, Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON SWAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARK E. COCCHI and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 21STCV10416 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 17, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the California Labor Code, Public Policy, and Unfair
Competition Law including wrongful termination, failure to provide
proper meal periods, failure to provide proper rest periods,
failure to timely pay wages upon termination, and unpaid overtime.

The Plaintiff worked as a dental hygienist for the Defendant for
more than 12 years. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                                   
          
         
         Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
         Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP
         100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
         Long Beach, CA 90802
         Telephone: (562) 733-2498
         Facsimile: (562) 628-5501
         E-mail: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com
                 laurel@buchsbaumhaag.com

MCLANE/SUNEAST INC: Castaneda Labor Class Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BENJAMIN CASTANEDA-RIVERA and SHAYNIA VERNON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
MCLANE/SUNEAST, INC.; MCLANE FOODSERVICE, INC.; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS2017663, was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on March 16,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00465 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide accurate
wage statements in violations of the California Labor Code.

McLane/Suneast, Inc. is a supply chain services company located in
Kissimmee, Florida.

McLane Foodservice, Inc. is a provider of grocery and foodservice
supply chain solutions based in Texas. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
         Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
         Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq.
         MCGUIREWOODS LLP
         1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
         Telephone: (310) 315-8200
         Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
         E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com
                 abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com
                 ksakaue@mcguirewoods.com

                 - and -

         Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
         MCGUIREWOODS LLP
         2 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 844-9944
         Facsimile: (415) 844-9922
         E-mail: skim@mcguirewoods.com

MERCK & CO: Appeal in Rotavirus Vaccines Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal in the
putative class action suit initiated by direct purchasers of
RotaTeq, is pending.

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (MSD)is a defendant in putative class
action lawsuits filed in 2018 on behalf of direct purchasers of
RotaTeq, alleging violations of federal antitrust laws. The cases
were consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In January 2019, the court denied MSD's motions to compel
arbitration and to dismiss the consolidated complaint. In February
2019, MSD appealed the court's order on arbitration to the Third
Circuit.

In October 2019, the Third Circuit vacated the district court's
order and remanded for limited discovery on the issue of
arbitrability. On July 6, 2020, MSD filed a renewed motion to
compel arbitration, and plaintiffs filed a cross motion for summary
judgment as to arbitrability.

On November 20, 2020, the district court denied MSD's motion and
granted plaintiffs' motion.

On December 4, 2020, MSD filed a notice of appeal to the Third
Circuit.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. It
operates through four segments: Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Healthcare Services, and Alliances. Merck & Co., Inc. was founded
in 1891 and is headquartered in Kenilworth, New Jersey.

MERCK & CO: Bravecto Related Putative Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a complaint seeking to certify a nationwide class action of
purchasers or users of Bravecto.

In January 2020, the Company was served with a complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
seeking to certify a nationwide class action of purchasers or users
of Bravecto (fluralaner) products in the United States or its
territories between May 1, 2014 and December 27, 2019.

The complaint contends Bravecto causes neurological events and
alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Breach of
Warranty, Product Liability, and related theories.

A similar case was filed in Quebec, Canada in May 2019.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. It
operates through four segments: Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Healthcare Services, and Alliances. Merck & Co., Inc. was founded
in 1891 and is headquartered in Kenilworth, New Jersey.


MERCK & CO: Campbell Sues Over Zostavax Vaccine's Adverse Effects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE A. CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK SHARP &
DOHME CORP., "JOHN DOE," "JANE DOE," and "XYZ CORP" (FICTITIOUS
NAMES), Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01235-HB (E.D. Pa., March 15,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
strict liability, products liability, breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, punitive damages, and loss of consortium.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide information
about the potential risk of viral infection of using Zostavax, a
vaccine designed and developed to prevent shingles. The Defendants
failed to exercise reasonable care in the design, formulation,
manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality control,
labeling, marketing, promotions, and distribution of Zostavax
because they knew, or should have known, that the product caused
viral infection, and was therefore not safe for administration to
consumers. The Defendants also failed to exercise due care in the
labeling of Zostavax and failed to issue to consumers and/or their
healthcare providers adequate warnings as to the risk of serious
bodily injury, including viral infection, resulting from its use,
the suit says.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct, the
Plaintiffs sustained severe and permanent personal injuries, as
well as significant conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish,
emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment
and injury.

Merck & Co., Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical
company based in New Jersey.

Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp. is a company that operates as a
research-intensive biopharmaceutical company located in New Jersey.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         Mark T. Sadaka, Esq.,
         Michael H. Bowman, Esq.
         SADAKA ASSOCIATES, LLC
         155 North Dean Street, Suite 4-D
         Englewood, NJ 07631
         Telephone: (201) 266-5670
         Facsimile: (201) 266-5671
         E-mail: mark@sadakafirm.com

MERCK & CO: Zetia Related Consolidated Putative Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated putative class action suit related to the
sales of Zetia, a high blood cholesterol drug

Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (MSD), Schering Corporation and
MSP Singapore Company LLC (collectively, the Merck Defendants) are
defendants in putative class action and opt-out lawsuits filed in
2018 on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of Zetia alleging
violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as other
state statutory and common law causes of action.

The cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal
multidistrict litigation before Judge Rebecca Beach Smith in the
Eastern District of Virginia.

In December 2018, the court denied the Merck Defendants' motions to
dismiss or stay the direct purchaser putative class actions pending
bilateral arbitration. In August 2019, the district court adopted
in full the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge with
respect to the Merck Defendants' motions to dismiss on
non-arbitration issues, thereby granting in part and denying in
part Merck Defendants' motions to dismiss.

In addition, in June 2019, the representatives of the putative
direct purchaser class filed an amended complaint and, in August
2019, retailer opt-out plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In
December 2019, the district court granted the Merck Defendants'
motion to dismiss to the extent the motion sought dismissal of
claims for overcharges paid by entities that purchased generic
ezetimibe from Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. and dismissed any claims
for such overcharges.

In November 2019, the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed motions for class certification. On
August 21, 2020, the district court granted in part the direct
purchasers' motion for class certification and certified a class of
35 direct purchasers, and on November 2, 2020, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted the Merck Defendants' motion
for permission to appeal the district court's order.

Also, on August 14, 2020, the magistrate judge recommended that the
court grant the motion for class certification filed by the
putative indirect purchaser class. The Merck Defendants objected to
this report and recommendation and are awaiting a decision from the
district court.

On August 10, 2020, the Merck Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment and other motions, and plaintiffs filed a motion for
partial summary judgment, and other motions. Those motions are now
fully briefed, and the court will likely hold a hearing on the
competing motions. Trial in this matter has been adjourned.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. It
operates through four segments: Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Healthcare Services, and Alliances. Merck & Co., Inc. was founded
in 1891 and is headquartered in Kenilworth, New Jersey.

MERCK & CO: Zostavax Causes Viral Infection, Pouretezadi Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
FATTAN T. POURETEZADI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK SHARP &
DOHME CORP., "JOHN DOE," "JANE DOE," and "XYZ CORP" (FICTITIOUS
NAMES), Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01237-HB (E.D. Pa., March 15,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
strict liability, products liability, breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, and punitive damages.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide information
about the potential risk of viral infection of using Zostavax, a
vaccine designed and developed to prevent shingles. The Defendants
failed to exercise reasonable care in the design, formulation,
manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality control,
labeling, marketing, promotions, and distribution of Zostavax
because they knew, or should have known, that the product caused
viral infection, and was therefore not safe for administration to
consumers. The Defendants also failed to exercise due care in the
labeling of Zostavax and failed to issue to consumers and/or their
healthcare providers adequate warnings as to the risk of serious
bodily injury, including viral infection, resulting from its use,
the suit adds.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct, the
Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent personal injuries, as well
as significant conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish,
emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment
and injury.

Merck & Co., Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical
company based in New Jersey.

Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp. is a company that operates as a
research-intensive biopharmaceutical company located in New Jersey.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Mark T. Sadaka, Esq.,
         Michael H. Bowman, Esq.
         SADAKA ASSOCIATES, LLC
         155 North Dean Street, Suite 4-D
         Englewood, NJ 07631
         Telephone: (201) 266-5670
         Facsimile: (201) 266-5671
         E-mail: mark@sadakafirm.com

MICHIGAN DOC: Tippins Seeks Class Action Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY TIPPINS v. LES
PARISH, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00045-PLM-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class action
certificaton.

The Plaintiff contends that Michigan Department of Corrections
(MDOC) prison officials and employees are/were careless in
unreasonably exposing ECF inmates to COVID-19 inmates that were
positive and contagious.

The class of inmates are those that contracted COVID-19 at Oaks
Correctional Facility during the pandemic and those that has not
been placed in a situation of exposure to COVID-19by contagious
inmates.

The Michigan Department of Corrections oversees prisons and the
parole and probation population in the state of Michigan, United
States. It has 31 prison facilities, and a Special Alternative
Incarceration program, together composing approximately 41,000
prisoners.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 10,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lHbMiq
at no extra charge.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]


MIDWESTERN PET FOODS: Marshall Sues Over Contaminated Pet Food
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shanda Marshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MIDWESTERN PET FOODS, INC., Case No.
3:21-cv-00050-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., March 16, 2021), is brought as a
result of the Defendant making materially misleading and deceptive
product claims and failure to disclosed its inadequate, or
non-existent, testing protocols, and/or the potential or actual
presence of contaminants in its Pet Food Products which contain
excessive levels of aflatoxin, and were not adequately tested or
inspected for aflatoxin.

On December 30, 2020, the Defendant announced a recall of certain
of its dog and cat food formulas sold under the Sportmix brand
(Sportmix High Energy, Sportmix Energy Plus, and Sportmix Original
Cat). The recall was instituted, in cooperation with the United
States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"), after dozens of
reports of illnesses and deaths in dogs associated with pets'
consumption of Defendant's pet food, caused by excessive levels of
aflatoxins--potentially fatal toxins produced by the mold
Aspergillus flavus. Pets are highly susceptible to aflatoxin
poisoning because, unlike people, who eat a varied diet, pets
generally eat the same food continuously over extended periods of
time. If a pet's food contains aflatoxins, the toxins could
accumulate in the pet's system as they continue to eat the same
food.

As of January 21, 2021, the FDA was aware of more than 110 pets
that have died and more than 210 pets that are sick after eating
pet foods manufactured by the Defendant. The FDA's recent findings
are specific and cannot more clearly lay bare Defendant's reckless,
negligent, and careless conduct in placing lethal, adulterated Pet
Food Products into commerce for consumption by Plaintiff's and
Class Members' beloved pets.

Prior to the Defendant's initial recall announcement, the Plaintiff
was not aware nor had any knowledge that the Defendant's Pet Food
Products might contain excessive levels of aflatoxin, or that the
Defendant did not adequately test or inspect its Pet Food Products
before selling them. The Defendant uniformly omitted these material
facts on its package labels. Plaintiff would not have purchased the
Defendant's Pet Food Products or fed them to Paris, Candy, Opal,
Merle Girl, and Nicky had she known that the food might contain
excess levels of aflatoxin, or that Defendant did not adequately
test or inspect its food before selling it to consumers, or follow
its own internal standards or controls, like the Preventative
Control or Food Safety Plan, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased and fed Defendant's Sportmix Premium High
Energy and Sportmix Premium Energy Plus formulas to her four French
bulldogs.

Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. manufactures, distributes, advertises,
and sells pet food products nationwide under the brands: Sportmix,
Sportmix CanineX, Earthborne Holistic, Unrefined, Pro Pac, Venture,
Wholesomes, Sportstrail, Splash, and Nunn Better.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathleen A. DeLaney, Esq.
          DELANEY & DELANEY LLC
          3646 North Washington Blvd.
          Indianapolis, IN 46205
          Phone: (317) 920-0400
          Facsimile: (317) 920-0404
          Email: kathleen@delaneylaw.net

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Michelle Lukic, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                 mp@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          333 University Avenue, Suite 200
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Phone: (916) 565-7692
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          Email: mjt@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Raina Borelli, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 333-8844
          Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                 rborelli@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Charles LaDuca, Esq.
          Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Phone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          Email: charles@cuneolaw.com
                 kvandyck@cuneolaw.com
          
               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKGRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          Email: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                 rapeterson@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 623-3000
          Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                 scruzhodge@litedepalma.com


MLB ADVANCED: Faces Lee TCPA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MLB Advanced Media,
L.P., et al. The case is captioned as Kristina E. Lee v. MLB
Advanced Media, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01719-JGK (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 26, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) involving restrictions of use of telephone equipment. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John G. Koeltl.

The Defendants include San Francisco Giants Baseball Club, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company.

MLB Advanced Media is a limited partnership of the club owners of
Major League Baseball based in New York City and is the Internet
and interactive branch of the league.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Phillip Milian, Esq.
          CAREY RODRIGUEZ GREENBERG O'KEEFE, LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-7474
          Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
          E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com

MLB ADVANCED: Faces Lee TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTINA E. LEE, an individual suing on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated persons, v. MLB ADVANCED MEDIA, L.P., a Delaware
Limited Partnership, and SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-01719-JGK
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2021), is a class action action suit for
statutory damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting
from the illegal actions of the Defendants in transmitting
advertisement and telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff's
cellular telephones and the cellular telephones of numerous other
persons who are similarly situated using an automatic telephone
dialing system (ATDS) without prior express written consent and in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Major League Baseball television ratings and game attendance have
been plummeting for years. Eager to stay on their fans' minds,
professional baseball team franchisees and the league flouted their
obligations under the TCPA and deployed intrusive marketing
strategies to maintain fan engagement and bolster sales, the suit
says.

Ms. Lee is a subscriber and user of a cellular telephone number
which the Defendants sent text messages in violation of the TCPA.

MLB Advanced Media is a limited partnership of the club owners of
Major League Baseball based in New York City and is the Internet
and interactive branch of the league.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Milian, Esq.
          John C. Carey, Esq.
          Ruben Conitzer, Esq.
          CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN, LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
          Miami, Florida 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-7474
          Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
          E-mail: jcarey@careyrodriguez.com
                  dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
                  cperez@careyrodriguez.com
                  rconitzer@careyrodriguez.com
                  ecf@careyrodriguez.com

MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: N.Y. Judge Tosses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Moscow-based
telecommunications company Mobile Telesystems PJSC convinced a
federal judge in New York to throw out a proposed class action
brought against the company for allegedly artificially inflating
its stock price by making misstatements and omissions about costly
government investigations.

Shayan Salim sued MTS and three of its executives in March 2019,
accusing the defendants of engaging in securities fraud in the
lead-up to a stock drop. Salim alleged purported false and
misleading statements in connection with investigations into more
than $420 million in bribes paid to the Uzbek government. [GN]



MONEYGRAM INT'L: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of April 30 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against MoneyGram International, Inc.
("MoneyGram" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:MGI) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired MoneyGram securities between June 17, 2019 and February
22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/mgi.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to
disclose that: (1) XRP, the cryptocurrency that MoneyGram was
utilizing as part of its Ripple partnership, was viewed as an
unregistered and therefore unlawful security by the SEC; (2) in the
event that the SEC decided to enforce the securities laws against
Ripple, MoneyGram would be likely to lose the lucrative stream of
market development fees that was critical to its financial results
throughout the Class Period; and (3) as a result, defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/mgi or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in MoneyGram
you have until April 30, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484
info@bgandg.com [GN]


MONEYLION INC: Maurice Wutscher Attprney Discusses Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brady Hermann, Esq., of Maurice Wutscher LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit recently affirmed an order compelling arbitration, even
though the arbitration clause contained a class action waiver and
an anti-joinder provision, and dismissing a putative class action
brought against the operator of a smartphone app offering financial
services to its customers.

In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that (1) the arbitration
agreement allowed injunctive relief under California law, and that
(2) public injunctive relief under the various California consumer
protection statutes at issue is available in an individual lawsuit
without a plaintiff acting as a private attorney general.

This meant that the arbitration clause did not violate the
California Supreme Court's ruling in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 393
P.3d 85 (Cal. 2017), which held that no one can contractually waive
all rights to seek public injunctive relief, and therefore that any
contract that bars public injunctive relief in both court and
arbitration is invalid.

The case is DiCarlo v. MoneyLion, Inc.

The plaintiff enrolled in the defendant financial technology
company's Plus program, which offers a $500 credit-builder loan.
The plaintiff signed a membership agreement that explained that
Plus members owe monthly fees, monthly investment deposits and, if
applicable, monthly loan payments.

The agreement also had a provision that gave each party the right
to demand arbitration if a dispute arose and authorized the
arbitrator to award all injunctive remedies available in an
individual lawsuit under California law.

In addition, the agreement prohibited class actions as well as
claim joinder, under which the plaintiff could not "join or
consolidate claim(s) involving you with claims involving any other
person." In other words, each plaintiff would have to arbitrate
separately.

The plaintiff fell behind on her fees, deposits, and loan payments
and tried to cancel the agreement, but the defendant refused. In
order to cancel, the defendant required that the plaintiff first
pay off her membership fees followed by paying her loan in full.
The plaintiff allegedly could not afford to pay her accumulated
fees and loan.

The plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that the
defendant violated California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False
Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) for,
among other things, "[f]alsely advertising to the general public
within the State of California that the [credit-builder] Loans
contain 'no hidden fees.'"

The trial court granted the defendant's motion to compel
arbitration and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.  This appeal
followed.

The plaintiff asserted that the arbitration provision was invalid
because it violated California law requiring contracts to allow
public injunctive relief. Specifically, the plaintiff argued she
could secure public injunctive relief only by acting as a private
attorney general, which the arbitration agreement supposedly
prohibited.

Thus, one of the questions to be answered on appeal was whether or
not public injunctive relief under the relevant statutes was
available in an "individual lawsuit" without the plaintiff
"act[ing] as a private attorney general." To answer that question,
the Court noted that it had to determine (A) the scope of an
individual lawsuit, and (B) when someone acts as a private attorney
general.

California's legal requirement that contracts allow public
injunctive relief is known as the McGill rule. See, McGill v.
Citibank, N.A., 393 P.3d 85 (Cal. 2017). Public injunctive relief
is "relief that by and large benefits the general public…and that
benefits the plaintiff, if at all, only incidentally and/or as a
member of the general public." Id. at 89.

In McGill, the California Supreme Court held that no one can
contractually waive all rights to seek public injunctive relief.
Id. at 94. Thus, any contract that bars public injunctive relief in
both court and arbitration is invalid. Id. at 94.

The plaintiff argued that the joinder clause contained in the
agreement, prohibiting her from "join[ing] or consolidat[ing]
claims involving you with claims involving any other person[,]"
restricted an individual lawsuit to one that has no substantial
impact on others.

According to the plaintiff, this would mean that a claim for public
injunctive relief, which impacts others, would violate the joinder
clause, and therefore fall outside an individual lawsuit.  This,
the plaintiff argued, caused the arbitration provision to fail
under McGill.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding the arbitration and
anti-joinder clause did not prohibit all claims that impact other
people. Instead, the Court explained, it draws a line between two
distinct types of claims -- those "involving you" and those
"involving any other person" -- and prohibits bringing one of each
type in the same proceeding.

To demonstrate, the Court used an example of an individual named
John who received a large number of automated telephone calls. He
sues the company responsible for making his contact information
public -- a claim that "involves him."

His neighbor, who has also received constant calls, hears about the
lawsuit and wants to get involved. If John brings a second claim in
his lawsuit that relies on robocalls to his neighbor, that claim
would "involve any other person" (his neighbor) and would not be
his own claim.

The joinder clause provides that John and his neighbor may each
bring claims against the company but must do so individually.
John's victory could theoretically result in an injunction that
broadly affects others, which would have an impact on others,
including his neighbor, but it is still John's claim.

The Court noted that California has identified two distinct
concepts of a "private attorney general": the standing-to-sue
private attorney general, and the fee-shifting private attorney
general.

The standing-to-sue private attorney general did not need to suffer
even a factual injury in order to bring a lawsuit under certain
statutes. See, Californians for Disability Rts. v. Mervyn's, LLC,
138 P.3d 207, 209 (Cal. 2006).

The "fee-shifting" private attorney general is an equitable
practice created by statute to incentivize private enforcement of
civil-rights legislation, making attorney fees available to the
prevailing plaintiff. The fee-shifting provisions act as "a tool
that ensures the vindication of important rights, even when large
sums of money are not at stake, by making attorney's fees available
under a private attorney general theory." Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S.
103, 122 (1992).

However, when California passed Proposition 64, it decided "that
only the California Attorney General and local public officials
[should] prosecute actions on behalf of the general public." Prop.
64, Section 1(f). After Proposition 64, individuals must suffer
their own injuries to sue. Moreover, they can no longer bring a UCL
or FAL claim "for the interest of…the general public" without
being a victim of the conduct at issue.  Prop. 64, Sections 3, 5.
Thus, Proposition 64 effectively limited standing-to-sue private
attorneys general.

This led to a question for the California Supreme Court in McGill
-- without the ability to act for the interest of the general
public, can individual UCL and FAL litigants still seek public
injunctive relief in individual lawsuits? McGill, 393 P.3d at 92.
The McGill court held that, because individuals seeking public
injunctive relief under the UCL and FAL do so "on [their] own
behalf" and not "on behalf of the general public," the relief
remains available.

Although McGill did not discuss the CLRA, the Ninth Circuit
believed there is no apparent reason why suit under the CLRA for
the same relief could not just as plausibly be brought "on [the
plaintiff's] own behalf."

The Court noted that the plaintiff's argument that public
injunctive relief was categorically unavailable could not be
squared away with the clear text of the all-remedies clause
providing that "[t]he arbitrator . . . shall be authorized to award
all remedies available in an individual lawsuit…, including,
without limitation, . . . injunctive . . . relief."

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit held that, under the agreement at
issue, litigants proceeding in individual lawsuits could request
public injunctive relief in arbitration with the defendant.
Therefore, the agreement did not violate the McGill rule and was
valid and enforceable. [GN]


MULTIPLAN CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 23 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on March 2 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against MultiPlan Corporation f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp. III
("Churchill III") ("MultiPlan" or the "Company") (NYSE: MPLN) on
behalf of shareholders who purchased

MultiPlan securities between July 12, 2020 and November 10, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period") and on behalf of all holders of
Churchill III Class A common stock entitled to vote on Churchill
III's merger with and acquisition of Polaris Parent Corp. and its
consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, "MultiPlan"), which merger
was consummated in October 2020 (the "Merger").

All investors who purchased shares of MultiPlan Corporation and
incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of MultiPlan Corporation,
you may, no later than April 23, 2021, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
the shares of MultiPlan Corporation.

On November 11, 2020, one month after the close of the Merger,
Muddy Waters published a report on Churchill III titled "MultiPlan:
Private Equity Necrophilia Meets The Great 2020 Money Grab" (the
"Muddy Waters Report").

Among other revelations, the Muddy Waters Report revealed that
MultiPlan was in the process of losing its largest client,
UnitedHealthcare, which was estimated to cost the Company up to 35%
of its revenues and 80% of its levered free cash flow within two
years. Following this news, Churchill III stock dropped and by
November 12, 2020, the price of Churchill III Class A common stock
fell to a low of just $6.12 per share, nearly 40% below the price
at which shareholders could have received for their shares at the
time of the shareholder Merger vote.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.  [GN]


NEW YORK: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Roberson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FREDERICK ROBERSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANDREW M. CUOMO, Governor
of New York, in his official capacity and TINA M. STANFORD,
Chairperson of the New York State Board of Parole, in her official
capacity Defendants, Case No. 20 Civ. 2817 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), Chief
District Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment, and denied the Plaintiffs' cross motion for
summary judgment.

In the case, named Plaintiff Roberson and the putative class filed
suit against Defendants Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York,
and Stanford, Chairperson of the New York State Board of Parole,
challenging the constitutionality of New York's regulations for the
detention of parolees who are awaiting final parole revocation
hearings due to alleged violations of the conditions of their
release.

In Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 477 (1972), parole is an
alternative method by which a prisoner may complete his or her
sentence.  Admission to parole does not terminate a prisoner's
sentence; "The essence of parole is release from prison, before the
completion of sentence, on the condition that the prisoner abide by
certain rules during the balance of the sentence."

The Plaintiffs' challenge addresses what happens to the parolee
between the finding of probable cause at the preliminary hearing
(or the waiver thereof) and the final revocation hearing.  Pursuant
to Executive Law Section 259-i(3), if a parole officer has probable
cause to believe that a parolee has violated the terms and
conditions of parole, a warrant may (not must) be issued for
temporary detention in accordance with the rules of the Parole
Board.  However, at the preliminary hearing, if the hearing officer
finds that there is probable cause to find that the alleged
violator has violated one or more of the conditions of parole "in
an important respect," s/he "shall direct that the alleged violator
be held for further action."

Probable cause can be made in one of three ways: it can be
determined at a preliminary hearing; will be presumed if the
parolee waives a preliminary hearing; or must be found upon
presentation of proof that the parolee has been convicted of a new
crime while under supervision.  The Board will only order a final
revocation hearing for a parolee after a finding of probable cause
if the parolee is in custody or has absconded.

Read together, these regulations mandate detention for all parolees
awaiting a final revocation hearing.

The Plaintiffs allege that this mandatory detention scheme -- which
is in force in 30 of the 50 states, and which has been followed
unchallenged for over four decades -- is unconstitutional.
Invoking 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Due Process Clause of the
United States Constitution, they ask the Court to do what the
legislature has thus far not chosen to do -- craft some alternative
to mandatory detention, in the nature of a "bail-like" procedure
that would require evaluation of a parolee's suitability for
release pending the final revocation hearing, at which the parolee
would have rights akin to those attendant on a bail hearing,
including the right to present evidence to a neutral decision
maker, who would have to conclude, in a reasoned decision, in
writing or on the record, that the parolee presented a public
safety or flight risk in order to justify detention pending the
final hearing.

The State contends that, in form and substance, the Plaintiffs are
alleging that a bail hearing is constitutionally required for
parole violators.  The Court is hard-pressed to disagree with that
assessment, as the standard proposed by the Plaintiffs is identical
to that for fixing bail when a person is charged with a crime in a
federal (but not a state) court.

The Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on April 6, 2020,
shortly after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.  The Defendants
did not cross-move for dismissal of the complaint, but urged that
the precise question had already been considered and decided, in
Morrissey and in other cases.

On April 20, Judge McMahon issued an opinion denying the
preliminary injunction motion.  She concluded that the Plaintiffs
had not come close to demonstrating a likelihood of success on the
merits, especially in view of their request for a mandatory
injunction against the State.  However, finding no case (let alone
a controlling case) that, after consideration of the precise
question, rejected the Plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to a
mandatory detention scheme like New York's, she concluded that the
constitutionality of New York's scheme had to be evaluated using
the factors discussed in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332
(1976) -- a case decided four years after Morrissey that outlined
how to evaluate a procedural due process challenge to "governmental
decisions which deprive individuals of 'liberty' or 'property'
interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
or Fourteenth Amendment."

In taking this course, the Judge followed the view of a (bare)
majority of the Seventh Circuit in an earlier case that challenged
the constitutionality of an identical mandatory detention scheme,
Faheem-El v. Klincar, 841 F.2d 712, 725 (7th Cir. 1988).  She
directed the parties to assemble a record that would allow the
Court to undertake such an evaluation.

After several months of discovery, the parties cross-moved for
summary judgment.  The Plaintiffs assert a single cause of action:
That the Defendants' mandatory detention regulations, actions, and
inactions violate the due process rights of people on parole in New
York City who are subject to detention pending their final hearing
on a parole warrant under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution.  They seek a declaration that these
regulations are unconstitutional, a permanent injunction thereof,
and an order directing Defendants to conduct "suitability for
release" hearings pending the final revocation hearing.

Judge McMahon is called upon only to determine what process is due.
She explains that in Mathews v. Eldridge the Supreme Court
identified three factors that should be considered in ascertaining
what process is due to an individual in a particular circumstance:
(1) the private interest that will be affected by the official
action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest
through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of
additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the
Government's interest, including the function involved and the
fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute
procedural requirement would entail.

Balancing the Mathews factors in light of the evidence presented by
the parties, the Judge holds that the Defendants have the better of
the argument.  At bottom, the Plaintiffs' concerns are rooted in
policy, not constitutional entitlement.  Those concerns should be
voiced to the legislature, not the courts.  Just last year, New
York enacted a sweeping bail reform that effectively eliminated
cash bail for most persons charged with misdemeanors and nonviolent
felonies.  This change has resulted in considerably more persons
being admitted to bail in New York State when charged with crimes
that, if committed by a parolee, would also constitute parole
violations.

The Court is not insensitive to the irony that a parolee who
committed such a crime might not be subject to pretrial detention
pending the adjudication of that crime, but would be subject to
mandatory detention pending the adjudication of the same conduct if
it were charged as a parole violation.  But it is not the province
of the Court to reconcile this conflict unless the Constitution
requires it.  The Constitution does not.

Nevertheless, the Judge holds that New York may soon provide
parolees with bail-like "suitability for release" hearings.  As the
Defendants correctly note, a bill is currently pending before the
New York Legislature that would provide the Plaintiffs the relief
they seek.  Indeed, even as the Court was finalizing its opinion,
Senate Bill S1144 was assigned a "same as" bill in the Assembly --
A5576.  In other words, an identical bill about parole revocation
is currently pending in both the Senate and the Assembly.  That is
an early sign that the bill may well pass both houses.

The Judge expresses no view on whether or not such a bill would be
sound policy.  She concludes only that, as a matter of federal
constitutional law, New York's mandatory detention of alleged
parole violators pending their final revocation hearings does not
deprive parolees of their liberty interest as defined in Morrissey
without due process.

There remains one administrative matter to be addressed.  The
Plaintiffs bring the suit against Governor Cuomo in his official
capacity and Stanford in her official capacity as Chairperson of
the Board.  Ordinarily, a suit against a state official in his or
her official capacity is deemed an action against the state itself,
and Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.

The Judge finds that New York's executive law expressly provides
that the detention of alleged parole violators is regulated by the
rules and regulations of the Parole Board.  And it is the Parole
Board that has promulgated and enforced the mandatory detention
regulations.  Thus, while Chairperson Stanford is a proper
defendant to the lawsuit, Governor Cuomo is not.

For reasons she stated, Judge McMahon granted the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment, and denied the Plaintiffs' cross
motion.  Her Decision and Order constitutes a written opinion and
order of the Court.  The Clerk of Court is directed to market the
motions at Docket Nos. 5, 57, 64, 65, and 80 off the Court's list
of open motions, to enter judgment for the Defendants, and to close
the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 10, 2021 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/43zphaa2 from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Roberson
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FREDERICK ROBERSON, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,  v. ANDREW M.
CUOMO, Governor of New York, in his official capacity and TINA M.
STANFORD, Chairperson of the New York State Board of Parole, in her
official capacity, Case No. 1:20-cv-02817-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Court
entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and

   2. denying the Plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment;

The Plaintiff Frederick Roberson and the putative class filed suit
against the Defendants challenging the constitutionality of New
York’s regulations for the detention of parolees who are awaiting
final parole revocation hearings due to alleged violations of the
conditions of their release. The parties have cross-moved for
summary judgment. This Court previously denied Plaintiffs' motion
for a preliminary injunction.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OVfZ62 at no extra charge.[CC]


NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Discovery Ongoing in PERS Mississippi Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Nielsen Holdings plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing
in the consolidated putative class action suit headed by the Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi.

In August 2018, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants
Nielsen, former Chief Executive Officer Dwight Mitchell Barns, and
former Chief Financial Officer Jamere Jackson.

Another lawsuit, which alleged similar facts but also named other
Nielsen officers, was filed in the Northern District of Illinois in
September 2018 and transferred to the Southern District of New York
in December 2018.

The actions were consolidated on April 22, 2019, and the Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi was appointed lead
plaintiff for the putative class. The operative complaint was filed
on September 27, 2019, and asserts violations of certain provisions
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on
allegedly false and materially misleading statements relating to
the outlook of Nielsen's Buy (now "Connect") segment, Nielsen's
preparedness for changes in global data privacy laws and Nielsen's
reliance on third-party data. Nielsen moved to dismiss the
operative complaint on November 26, 2019.

On January 4, 2021, certain of the allegations against Nielsen and
its officers were dismissed, while others were sustained.

Discovery is in its early stages and is ongoing.

In addition, in January 2019, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was
filed in New York Supreme Court against a number of Nielsen's
current and former officers and directors. The derivative lawsuit
alleges that the named officers and directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company in connection with factual
assertions substantially similar to those in the putative class
action complaint.

The derivative lawsuit further alleges that certain officers and
directors engaged in trading Nielsen stock based on material,
nonpublic information. By agreement dated June 26, 2019, the
derivative lawsuit was stayed pending resolution of Nielsen's
motion to dismiss the aforementioned securities litigation. Nielsen
anticipates an amended complaint will be filed in the coming
months. Nielsen intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously.

Nielsen said, "Based on currently available information, Nielsen
believes that the Company has meritorious defenses to these actions
and that their resolution is not likely to have a material adverse
effect on Nielsen's business, financial position, or results of
operations."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Nielsen Holdings plc, together with its subsidiaries, operates as
an information and measurement company. It operates through Buy and
Watch segments. Nielsen Holdings plc was founded in 1923 and is
headquartered in Oxford, the United Kingdom.

NIKOLA CORP: UCL Violations-Related Suits Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Nikola Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend putative class action suits related to its violations of the
Unfair Competition Law under California law.

Beginning on September 15, 2020, six putative class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, asserting violations of federal
securities laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and, in one case,
violations of the Unfair Competition Law under California law.

The complaints generally allege that the Company and certain of its
officers and directors made false and/or misleading statements in
press releases and public filings regarding the Company's business
plan and prospects.

The actions are: Borteanu v. Nikola Corporation, et al. (Case No.
2:20-cv-01797-JZB), filed by Daniel Borteanu in the United States
District Court of the District of Arizona on September 15, 2020;
Salem v. Nikola Corporation, et al. (Case No. 1:20-cv-04354), filed
by Arab Salem in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on September 16, 2020; Wojichowski v. Nikola
Corporation, et al. (Case No. 2:20-cv-01819-DLR), filed by John
Wojichowski in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona on September 17, 2020; Malo v. Nikola Corporation, et al.
(Case No. 5:20-cv-02168), filed by Douglas Malo in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
October 16, 2020; and Holzmacher, et al. v. Nikola Corporation, et
al. (Case No. 2:20-cv-2123-JJT), filed by Albert Holzmacher,
Michael Wood and Tate Wood in the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona on November 3, 2020, and Eves v. Nikola
Corporation, et al. (Case No. 2:20-cv-02168-DLR), filed by William
Eves in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona on November 10, 2020.

In October 2020, stipulations by and among the parties to extend
the time for the defendants to respond to the complaints until a
lead plaintiff, lead counsel, and an operative complaint are
identified were entered as orders in certain of the filed actions.


On November 16, 2020 and December 8, 2020 respectively, orders in
the Malo and Salem actions were entered to transfer the actions to
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

On November 16, 2020, ten motions both to consolidate the pending
securities actions and to be appointed as lead plaintiff were filed
by putative class members.

On December 15, 2020, the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona consolidated the actions under lead case
Borteanu v. Nikola Corporation, et al., No. CV-20-01797-PXL-SPL,
and appointed Angelo Baio as the "Lead Plaintiff".

On December 23, 2020, a motion for reconsideration of the Court's
order appointing the Lead Plaintiff was filed. On December 30,
2020, a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the
District Court's Lead Plaintiff order and directing the court to
appoint another Lead Plaintiff was filed before the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 20-73819.

Both the motion for reconsideration and mandamus petition remain
pending.

On January 28, 2021, the district court entered a scheduling order
in the consolidated lawsuit. The Lead Plaintiff's Amended
Consolidated Complaint is due March 15, 2021, the Company's
responsive pleading is due April 29, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff's
opposition to a motion to dismiss, should one be filed by the
defendants, is due June 1, 2021, and the defendants' reply is due
July 1, 2021.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount in damages, attorneys' fees,
and other relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself.


Nikola said, "The Company is unable to estimate the potential loss
or range of loss, if any, associated with these lawsuits, which
could be material."

Nikola Corporation a vertically integrated zero emissions systems
provider that designs and manufactures state of the art battery
electric and hydrogen electric vehicles, electric vehicle
drivetrains, energy storage systems, and hydrogen fueling stations.
The company is based in Phoenix, Arizona.

NISSAN NORTH: Cars Have Defective Transmission Systems, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAYNE NEWTON and BEATRIZ ZAVALA on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., NISSAN
MOTOR CO. LTD, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-00169
(M.D. Tenn., March 1, 2021) seeks damages for breach of warranty
and for unfair and deceptive acts or practices arising from
Nissan's design, manufacture, and sale of defective 2011 through
present Nissan Rogue vehicles, and all other Nissan vehicles from
2011-present equipped with a Continuously Variable Transmission
(CVT) that are not the subject of a prior class action settlement
and release (the "Defective Class Vehicles").

According to the complaint, the Defective Class Vehicles, which are
designed and manufactured by the Defendants, including from and
within the State of Tennessee, and sold throughout the United
States, are plagued by and possess a dangerous design and/or
manufacturing defect in their transmission systems associated with
their CVT. A CVT, which is engineered by the defendants, is a type
of transmission that does not utilize conventional gears to achieve
various movements required during normal driving. The CVT uses a
segmented steel belt between pulleys that can be adjusted to change
the reduction ratios in the transmission, which is supposed to
occur smoothly and continuously. While CVT does not use
conventional gears, it is electronically controlled by a
Transmission Control Module (TCM).

However, despite knowing about the CVT Defect for several years,
and the fact that it poses a significant risk of injury that
impacts the public at large, Nissan allegedly has been concealing
it from owners, purchasers, and lessees of the Defective Class
Vehicles in a conscious and deliberate effort to avoid suffering
economic losses occasioned by the need for repair of said vehicles
at Nissan's own expense, thereby placing profits ahead of the
safety of consumers and the public interest, the Plaintiffs
contend.

As a result, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated purchasers of the Defective Class Vehicles, assert the
causes of actions and claims as alleged below arising under the
consumer protection laws of the States of Nebraska and California,
and/or common law, and/or the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act with
respect to the Nationwide Consumer Class, and/or the Nebraska and
California Consumer Classes.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Ave, Ste 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
                  beng@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOES & BACINE
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0800
          Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
          E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
                  sward@barrack.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
          2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300
          Houston, TX 77042
          Telephone: (800) 551-8649
          Facsimile: (501) 286-4659
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Holden FSCA Class Suit Goes to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LAUREN HOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NORTONLIFELOCK, INC., Case No.
2021-CA-000731, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court of the
Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on March 12,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 3:21-cv-00279-BJD-JRK to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Florida Security of Communications Act by monitoring and recording
the Plaintiff's and Class members' activity during their visits to
the Defendant's Website.

NortonLifeLock Inc. is an American software company headquartered
in Tempe, Arizona. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Joseph A. Apatov, Esq.
         Peter J. Maskow, Esq.
         McGLINCHEY STAFFORD
         1 E. Broward Blvd, Suite 1400
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 356-2516
         Facsimile: (954) 252-3808
         E-mail: japatov@mcglinchey.com
                 pmaskow@mcglinchey.com

OHIO SECURITY: Zedan Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage
--------------------------------------------------------
ZEDAN OUTDOORS, LLC DBA TAYLOR'S BAR & GRILL, an Oregon limited
liability company, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMAPNY, a foreign
corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-00407-YY (D. Ore., March 16, 2021),
is brought to recover damages for Oregon businesses caused by the
Defendant's refusal to provide coverage for damages and losses
sustained by Oregon businesses as a result of governmental orders
that have either closed or significantly limited the operations of
those Oregon businesses.

To protect its business and business income, among other things,
Zedan purchased an "all risk" insurance policy from OSIC, numbered
BFS (20) 58 03 61 84, that was effective from May 17, 2019, to May
17, 2020 (the "Policy"). The Policy is effective at all relevant
times alleged in this Complaint. Plaintiff paid, and Defendant
accepted, all premiums as they became due. The Policy constitutes a
valid and enforceable contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. The
Policy promises to pay Plaintiff for all risks of direct physical
loss of or damage to covered property, and includes, among others,
Business Income coverage, Extra Expense coverage, and Civil
Authority coverage.

In January 2020, the United States of America saw its first cases
of people infected with COVID-19. Beginning in March 2020, the
Plaintiff was forced to suspend, in whole or in part, its business
operations due to certain orders and directives issued by Oregon
Governor Kate Brown and local civil authorities which, among other
things, restricted access to and operation of the Plaintiff's
business, limited groups of people, curtailed travel, and generally
limited commercial activity, each and all of which caused the
Plaintiff to suffer loss or damage (the "Orders"). As a direct
result of the Orders, the Plaintiff was unable to operate its
business, in whole or in part, while the Orders remained in effect.
As a result, the Plaintiff's business property cannot be used for
its intended purposes and its business activities have necessarily
been suspended or interrupted. The Plaintiff sustained direct
physical loss or damage caused by the Orders.

Despite the Policy language and the coverages it promises, the
Defendant refuses to acknowledge that "loss" and "damage" refer to
distinct harms, resulting in additional protection for the
Plaintiff's loss and damage directly, efficiently, and proximately
caused by the Orders. Contrary to the coverage provisions in their
insurance policies with the Defendant, and in violation of Oregon
law, the Defendant has universally denied coverage to Plaintiff and
members of the Classes and have refused to honor the contractual
obligations the Defendant has under the policies, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff owns and operates Taylor's Bar and Grill in Eugene,
Oregon.

The Defendant is a New Hampshire insurance company having its
principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts, and operating
as part of the Liberty Mutual group of companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle A. Sturm, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Thede, Esq.
          FOREMAN STURM & THEDE LLP
          P.O. Box 13098
          Portland, OR 97213
          Phone: 503.206.5824
          Email: kyle.sturm@foremansturm.com
                 nick.thede@foremansturm.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Kahl, Esq.
          NICK KAHL LLC
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 400
          Portland, OR 97204
          Phone: (971) 634-0829
          Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
          Email: nick@nickkahl.com

               - and -

          Craig Lowll, Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB LLC
          The Kress Building,
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 809-7707
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
          Email: clowell@wigginschilds.com


OLD NAVY: Nunez Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Retail Shop Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANAI NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OLD NAVY LLC; THE GAP, INC.; SONIA SYNGAL;
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-21-590165 (Cal.
Super., San Francisco Cty., March 15, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to reimburse necessary business
expenses and unfair business practices in violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
hourly employee at Old Navy, LLC's retail location in Downey
Landing, California from approximately November 17, 2020.

Old Navy LLC is a clothing retail company headquartered in San
Francisco, California.

The Gap, Inc. is an American worldwide clothing and accessories
retailer based in San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Julian Burns King, Esq.
         Elliot J. Siegel, Esq.
         KING & SIEGEL LLP
         724 South Spring Street, Suite 201
         Los Angeles, CA 90014
         Telephone: (213) 465-4802
         Facsimile: (213) 465-4803
         E-mail: julian@kingsiegel.com
                 elliot@kingsiegel.com

ORAMED PHARMA: Andrews & Springer Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm
focused on representing shareholders nationwide, is investigating
potential securities violations and breach of fiduciary duty claims
against Oramed Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Oramed" or the
"Company")(NASDAQCM: ORMP).

If you currently own shares of Oramed and want to receive
additional information and protect your investments free of charge,
please visit us at
http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-investigations/oramed-class-action-investigation/
or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013.
You may also follow us on LinkedIn -
www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter –
www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook -
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm
representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having
formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in the
world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge,
experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving
positive results for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of
our innovative approach to each case our Firm decides to prosecute.
For more information please visit our website at
www.andrewsspringer.com. This notice may constitute Attorney
Advertising.

Contacts:
Craig J. Springer, Esq.
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com
Toll Free: 1-800-423-6013 [GN]


ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Faces Cota Civil Rights Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of Orange, et
al. The case is captioned as Jose Roberto Cota, et al. v. County of
Orange, et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-00387-FLA-JEM (C.D. Calif., Feb.
26, 2021), alleges that the

The nature of suits states Prisoner: Civil Rights. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendants include Don Barnes, Orange County Sheriff, in
individual capacity; Orange County Sheriff, in official capacity;
Joe Balicki, Facility Commander, in individual capacity; Joe
Balicki, Facility Commander, in official capacity; J. Von Nordheim,
Facility Captain, in indvidual capacity; J. Von Nordheim, Facility
Captain, in official capacity; and Orange County Sheriffs
Department.[BN]



PAVEL PARTITION: Ocampo Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Installers
-------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE OCAMPO, RICARDO ALBERTO ZABALETA BATISTA, YONATHAN GARZON,
JAVIER MORA, JOSE CARRERO, and RODOLFO CARVAJAL, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PAVEL
PARTITION INSTALLERS INC. (D/B/A PPI INSTALLER), TATYANA GOLDBERG
INC. (D/B/A TGI INSTALLERS), PAVEL GARCIA VILLALOBOS, JORGE
CERQUERA, NICK DOE, RAMON DOE, and PANCHO DOE, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-02343 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to pay appropriate minimum
wages and overtime pay, failure to provide accurate payroll
records, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to
reimburse business expenses, and unlawful wage deductions.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as installers at
construction projects in Manhattan, New York at any time between
2018 and 2019.

Pavel Partition Installers Inc., doing business as PPI Installer,
is a construction firm located at 1040 Oak Tree Ln, Annapolis,
Maryland.

Tatyana Goldberg Inc., doing business as TGI Installers, is a
construction company located at 6930 St. Thomas Rd., Elkridge,
Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         Michael Faillace, Esq.
         MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 317-1200
         Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

PERDUE FARMS: Dismissal of Jien's Second Amended Complaint Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUDY JIEN, et al., Plaintiffs v. PERDUE FARMS, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:19-CV-2521-SAG (D. Md.), Judge
Stephanie A. Gallagher of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland denied the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs Jien, Kieo Jibidi, Elaisa Clement, Glenda Robinson, and
Emily Earnest, on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf
of a class of former and current employees, filed suit against 14
poultry processors, plus two data consulting companies.  The SAC
alleges two violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege 1) a conspiracy among the
Defendants to fix and depress poultry workers' compensation, and 2)
an unlawful exchange of compensation data.

The Defendants have filed four motions to dismiss.  The first seeks
to narrow the scope of the action because the named Plaintiffs have
only ever worked as hourly employees at chicken processing plants,
and thus allegedly lack standing to pursue claims related to
salaried positions or workers in turkey processing plants.  The
remaining three are filed on behalf of individual Defendants
Jennie-O Turkey Store Inc., Mountaire Farms Inc., and Sanderson
Farms Inc., respectively, arguing, among other things, that the SAC
does not provide sufficient details about how the companies were
involved in the alleged conspiracy to state a claim.

Standing

The pertinent question is: Are the differences that do exist the
type that leave the class representative with an insufficient
personal stake in the adjudication of the class members' claims?"
Judge Gallagher notes that the Court has already determined that
the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled the existence of a singular
poultry labor market, irrespective of whether the workers are
salaried or hourly, or work with chicken or turkey.  Crucially, the
SAC alleges how that poultry labor market was impacted by the same
exact anticompetitive conduct; namely secret meetings,
plant-to-plant communication, and extensive data sharing via WMS
and Agri Stats.

The Judge opines that these allegations -- consistent across all
members of the class, named and otherwise -- constitute the heart
of the case and suggest that the named Plaintiffs have a sufficient
personal stake in the adjudication of the class members' claims to
establish standing, even for those class members from slightly
different backgrounds.  As such, she holds that the Plaintiffs have
standing to pursue their claims and the Defendants' Motion will be
denied.  The Defendants will remain free, of course, to challenge
the Plaintiffs' ability to satisfy the commonality, typicality, and
predominance requirements for class certification pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23.

The Individual Motions to Dismiss

Jennie-O, Mountaire, and Sanderson challenge the SAC's sufficiency
as it pertains to both its per se and "rule of reason" antitrust
claims, and also suggest that the SAC engages in impermissible
group pleading.

All three individual Defendants make similar arguments regarding
the SAC's alleged failure to cure the "group pleading" defects the
Court identified in its initial dismissal opinion.  Jennie-O
suggests that this improper group pleading manifests by virtue of
the SAC's "barely mentioning JOTS" in connection with specific
facts and otherwise seeking to "broadly lump unidentified
Defendants together." However, the Judge finds that the SAC links
Jennie-O specifically to the secret compensation meetings and the
WMS data exchange process in advance of those meetings, and
additionally outlines its use of Agri Stats, all of which provides
sufficient specificity.  That factual allegations against Jennie-O
are the same or similar to those made against the other Defendants
is not evidence that the allegations are insufficient or vague, but
rather reflects instead the Plaintiffs' specific assertion that it
engaged in the same conduct as its competitors.

Mountaire and Sanderson, meanwhile, suggest that merely naming
certain corporate subsidiaries as "co-conspirators" instead of
"defendants" is insufficient to provide the sort of specificity
this Court deemed necessary in its original opinion.  However, the
Judge finds that tthe SAC now specifies single Sanderson and
Mountaire entities as Defendants, eliminating the need for
guesswork.  It is now clearly alleged that it was Sanderson and
Mountaire, respectively, that engaged in each relevant part of the
conspiracy.  To the extent that the two Defendants suggest that it
was not them that engaged in the relevant conduct, they are free to
raise that argument at later stages of the litigation.  The inquiry
now requires only that the pleadings be specific as to which entity
is alleged to have engaged in which conduct.  The SAC sufficiently
clarifies which Sanderson and Mountaire entities are alleged to
have conspired.

Regarding per se conspiracy, the Judge holds that the Court already
determined that allegations stating that Jennie-O "first started
attending the 'off the books' meetings in or around 2015"
sufficiently tied the company to the Plaintiffs' direct evidence of
the per se conspiracy.  The Court also already determined that the
2018 Tyson executive statement made plausible wage-fixing
conspiracy allegations arising out of secret compensation meetings,
and now the SAC provides factual allegations claiming that
Mountaire attended some of those meetings and engaged in the
conspiracy through them.  And, assuming the truth of Sanderson's
alleged attendance at some of the secret compensation meetings,
that alone "allows the Court to reasonably infer" that it engaged
in the alleged wage suppression conspiracy in light of the Court's
previous conclusion regarding those secret meetings and the Tyson
executive's 2018 statements about them.

Turning to SAC's "rule of reason" claim, the Judge opines that the
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Jennie-O engaged in this
conduct via attendance at the secret compensation meetings and use
of Agri Stats.  There is also a factual predicate to support the
inference that Mountaire's use of exchanged data makes the alleged
anticompetitive effects plausible.  As for Sanderson, the Court
already determined that such alleged attendance at secret meetings,
combined with alleged use of Agri Stats as a tool to monitor and
enforce wage suppression agreements allegedly made at those
meetings, is sufficient to state a "rule of reason" claim.

Finally, the Judge examines the claims against Jennie-O for
pre-2015 conduct.  Because Jennie-O is alleged to have only begun
attending the secret compensation meetings in 2015, it asserts that
it should not be held liable for the pre-2015 conduct of the other
alleged conspirators.  It also argues that the Plaintiffs' Count II
rule of reason claims against it should be limited to conduct
occurring within four years prior to the filing of the Amended
Consolidated Complaint that first named Jennie-O as a Defendant.

The Judge holds that co-conspirators in antitrust cases are
"jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of the
resulting damages," even if injury did not arise from a single
conspirator's own conduct.  This is true even where co-conspirators
are not aware of the existence of other conspirators or of other
conspirators' actions.  The Judge also holds that Jennie-O is a
Defendant who is "specifically alleged to have participated in the
secret meetings" and therefore it is "appropriately alleged to have
fraudulently concealed those meetings" for the reasons outlined in
the Court's previous opinion.  In light of this fraudulent
concealment, the Plaintiffs may seek recovery for alleged harms
incurred throughout the class period irrespective of the four-year
limitations period.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Gallagher denied the Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss.  A separate Order is filed with her Memorandum
Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 10, 2021 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/zapcma9d from Leagle.com.


PERSPECTA INC: Faces Wilson Suit Over Proposed Deal With Veritas
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERSPECTA INC.; JOHN M. CURTIS; SANJU K.
BANSAL; SONDRA L. BARBOUR; LISA S. DISBROW; GLENN A. EISENBERG;
PAMELA O. KIMMET; RAMZI M. MUSALLAM; PHILIP O. NOLAN; BETTY J.
SAPP; MICHAEL E. VENTLING; and VERITAS CAPITAL FUND MANAGEMENT
L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. A-21-830758-B (D. Niv., Mar. 9, 2021)
is a class action by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated
public shareholders of Perspecta Inc. ("Perspecta" or the
"Company") against Perspecta, the Perspecta Board of Directors (the
"Board"), and Perspecta's controlling shareholder Veritas Capital
Fund Management L.L.C. (collectively, the "Defendants") for
breaching their fiduciary duties owed to the class in connection
with the proposed acquisition of Perspecta by affiliates of Veritas
Capital Fund Management L.L.C. (collectively, "Veritas").

On February 19, 2021, in order to convince Perspecta shareholders
to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, Perspecta filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission a materially incomplete and
misleading preliminary proxy statement (the "Proxy"). The Proxy
provides materially misleading information and omits material
information regarding: (i) the process that culminated in the
Proposed Merger; (ii) the financial forecasts prepared by the
Company's management; and (iii) the engagement of, and the
financial analyses performed by, the Company's financial advisors,
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("Goldman Sachs") and Stone Key Partners
LLC ("Stone Key," and together with Goldman Sachs, the "Financial
Advisors").

The Defendants exacerbated their breaches of fiduciary duty by
agreeing to unreasonable deal protection provisions in the Merger
Agreement that all but foreclose potential bidders from submitting
a superior offer to acquire Perspecta, including a provision that
requires Perspecta to pay Veritas a total termination fee of $97
million if the Perspecta Board terminates the Merger Agreement to
accept a superior proposal.

Magellan Health, Inc. coordinates and manages the delivery of
behavioral healthcare treatment services. The Company provides
services through its contracted network of third-party treatment
providers which includes psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric
hospitals, and residential treatment centers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          G. Mark Albright, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ormsby, Esq.
          ALBRIGHT STODDARD WARNICK & ALBRIGHT
          801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D-4
          Las Vegas, NV 89106
          Telephone: (702) 384-7111
          Facsimile: (702) 384-0605
          E-mail: gma@albrightstoddard.com
                  jalvarez@albrightstoddad.com


PORSCHE CARS: Faces Turner Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Porsche Cars North
America, Inc. The case is captioned as Bruce C. Turner, v. PORSCHE
CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00914-RBS (E.D.
Pa., Feb. 26, 2021).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge R. Barclay Surrick.

Porsche Cars North America, Inc. is headquartered in the United
States. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of
new and used automobiles.

The Defendants include DR. ING. H.C.F. PORSCHE AG.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick hHward, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY
          1650 Market St., 52nd Fl.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-3895
          E-mai: phoward@smbb.com

PRICE CHOPPER: Yogurt Contains Synthetic Vanillin Flavor, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Hoover, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Price Chopper, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00228-BKS-ML
(N.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2021) alleges that the the product's ingredient
List in low fat yogurt is misleading and prevents consumers from
learning the truth.

Price Chopper manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
low fat yogurt labeled as "Vanilla With Other Natural Flavors" with
a picture of vanilla beans and a vanilla flower under its PICS
brand ("Product").

The Defendant knows that consumers prefer foods with natural and
not artificial flavors, which is why it describes the Product as
containing "Other Natural Flavors" instead of "Artificially
Flavored."

Laboratory testing of the Product in the fall and/or winter of 2020
revealed it contains vanillin, an artificial flavor. See 21 C.F.R.
section 182.60 (listing vanillin as a "synthetic flavoring
substances and adjuvants").

Vanillin from eugenol is an artificial flavor because the high
heat, high pressure and chemical catalysts are outside of what is
considered a natural process for producing a natural flavor.

The Plaintiff contends that Defendant conflates natural and
artificial flavor, which deceives consumers. Because the only
natural vanillin is from the vanilla plant, vanillin from
non-vanilla sources is artificial. The vanillin used in the Product
is the artificial version and not from vanilla beans for several
reasons. The Plaintiff and consumers were misled because the
Product's vanilla taste did not come from the vanilla plant but
from artificial flavor with no connection to the vanilla plant, the
Plaintiff adds.

The Defendant sold more of the Product and at a higher price than
it would have in of this misconduct, resulting in additional
profits at the expense of consumers.

Had the plaintiff and the proposed class members known the truth,
they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for
it.

As a result of the alleged false and misleading representations,
the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$3.99 for containers of 32 OZ, excluding tax, compared to other
similar products represented in a non-misleading way, and higher
than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and
omissions.

Plaintiff Rebecca Hoover purchased the Product on one or more
occasions at the defendant's stores, and specifically, between
November and December 2020, at locations including 1510 S Main Ave,
Scranton, PA 18504.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
          Great Neck NY 11021-3104
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

QUALCOMM INC: Faces Consumer Class Action Over Chipset Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Walko, writing for EET Asia, reports that the allegation is
that Qualcomm has been overcharging Samsung and Apple since 2015,
with the charges passed on to consumers.

As a long-standing member of Which?, the UK's consumer champion, I
was surprised to get an e-mail from the organization asking me to
join a class action it is bringing against Qualcomm.

The consumer watchdog has some 1.5 million members and supporters,
but is urging all potentially impacted consumers in the UK to sign
up.

The suit relates to all Samsung and Apple smartphones using the
Snapdragon chipsets that were purchased in the UK after October 1st
2015.  For Apple users, that would imply iPhone 6s and 6s Plus, and
later devices.

It alleges that the chip maker charged Samsung and Apple inflated
fees for its patented devices. It calculates that UK consumers
could be entitled to between $24 to $42 for Samsung and Apple
handsets purchased since 2015, depending on how many sign up for
the class action.

Which? suggests any successful outcome would raise £482.5 million
(about $673 million).

The organization's CEO, Annabel Hoult, said in a statement: "We
believe Qualcomm's practices are anti-competitive and have so far
taken around £480 million from (UK) consumer's pockets. This needs
to stop. We are sending a clear warning that if companies like
Qualcomm indulge in manipulative practices which harm consumers,
Which? is prepared to take action."

Asked which particular Snapdragon chipsets would be involved in the
case, a Which? spokesman said it is "too early to share that
information with EE Times."

Not surprisingly, Qualcomm said the case has no basis. The company
issued a statement noting that "as the plaintiffs are well aware,
their claims were effectively put to rest last summer by a
unanimous panel of judges at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in
the US."

This references the FTC suit against Qualcomm for unfair practices
in the US from 2017. This was finally dismissed last year, after
years of wrangling.

Over the years, Qualcomm has lost and won numerous competition
authorities worldwide, including with the European Commission and
fair trade authorities in South Korea.

The EC case, which started in 2018, fined the firm €997 million
(about $1.22 million) for violating competition laws regarding a
series of deals it made with Apple. Another case, that commenced in
2019 , it faced another €242 million (about $270 million) fine
for abusing its dominant position in the 3G chipset market,
following a four year investigation.

Qualcomm appealed against both rulings.

The Which? case is also likely to drag on for many years. The
initial step is for the consumer champion to obtain permission from
the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal to act as class representative
so that the claim can proceed.  Which? told EE Times it has lodged
the relevant documents with the authorities.

If it wins the right, it will argue that Qualcomm is abusing its
position and employing an anticompetitive strategy that is in
breach of competition law and employs two unlawful practices, the
most important of which is that It refuses to license its patents
to other competing chipset manufacturers; and that it refuses to
supply chipsets to smartphone manufacturers unless those companies
obtain a separate license and pay inflated royalties to Qualcomm.

Asked why the organization is taking this action now, Lisa Webb, a
senior attorney at Which? told EE Times "those other cases did not
directly impact UK consumers. We will be pursuing arguments that
have not been covered before."

Webb also said the action is in some ways related to the UK's
departure from the European Union. The UK's competition authorities
could not consider the case before Brexit, she added.

"We will be proceeding under a relatively new law under the
Consumer Rights Act that was passed in 2015. This allows
individuals to take on big corporations under a collective action
regime."

This uses an 'opt out' address regime rather than the more
traditional opt-in, so many who qualify could claim redress if the
class action succeeds without necessarily joining at an early
stage.

"You will see many more consumer rights issues using this procedure
going forward," Webb said. [GN]


QUICKEN LOANS: 4th Circuit Affirms Class Certification in Alig Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP ALIG; SARA J. ALIG; ROXANNE SHEA; DANIEL V. SHEA,
Individually and on behalf of a class of persons,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. QUICKEN LOANS INC.; AMROCK INC., f/k/a
Title Source, Inc., d/b/a Title Source Inc. of West Virginia,
Incorporated, Defendants-Appellants, and DEWEY V. GUIDA; APPRAISALS
UNLIMITED, INC.; RICHARD HYETT, Defendants, Case No. 19-1059 (4th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit:

    (i) affirms the district court's decisions to grant class
        certification, grant summary judgment to the Plaintiffs
        on their conspiracy and unconscionable-inducement claims,
        and award statutory damages; but

   (ii) vacates the district court's grant of summary judgment to
        the Plaintiffs on their breach-of-contract claim and the
        related damages award.

The Plaintiffs are a class of "all West Virginia citizens who
refinanced" a total of 2,769 mortgages with Defendant Quicken Loans
from 2004 to 2009, "for whom Quicken Loans obtained appraisals"
from Defendant Amrock, an appraisal management company formerly
known as Title Source, Inc. ("TSI").

The Plaintiffs allege that pressure tactics used by Quicken Loans
and TSI to influence home appraisers to raise appraisal values to
obtain higher loan values on their homes constituted a breach of
contract and unconscionable inducement under the West Virginia
Consumer Credit and Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs brought actions against Quicken Loans, TSI, and
three other Defendants in West Virginia state court in 2011 which
were removed to federal court in 2012.  After a winnowing of the
claims and the Defendants, three claims remain: (1) a civil
conspiracy claim against both Quicken Loans and TSI; (2) a claim of
unconscionable inducement to contract under the West Virginia
Consumer Credit and Protection Act against Quicken Loans; and (3) a
breach-of-contract claim against Quicken Loans.

The district court conditionally certified the Plaintiffs' class
and granted in part and denied in part each of the parties' motions
for summary judgment.  The court then held an evidentiary hearing
on damages, after which it imposed a statutory penalty of $3,500 as
to unconscionability for each of the 2,769 violations, for a total
of $9,691,500.  The court also awarded the Plaintiffs the appraisal
fees they had paid as damages for breach of contract, for a total
of $968,702.95.  It did not award separate damages for conspiracy.

On appeal, the Defendants first challenge the district court's
decision to certify the class under Rule 23.  They argue that
individual issues predominate over common ones, precluding class
treatment.  They argue that questions of standing, their
statute-of-limitations defense, the unconscionable-inducement
analysis, various breach-of-contract issues, and the calculation of
damages all require individual determinations that should defeat
class certification.

The Fourth Circuit is not persuaded.  First, there is simply not a
large number of uninjured persons included within the Plaintiffs'
class.  Second, the statute-of-limitations question is
straightforward and susceptible to classwide determination.  Third,
the Plaintiffs need only show misconduct on the part of Defendants,
and concealment thereof, relating to a key aspect of the
loan-formation process which necessarily contributed to the class
members' decisions to enter the loan agreements.  Fourth, the
Plaintiffs fully performed their end of the contract by paying the
agreed-upon deposit.  Finally, district court acted within its
discretion when it determined that the statutory damages could be
assessed uniformly across the class.  Accordingly, the Fourth
Circuit affirms the district court's decision to certify the
Plaintiffs' class.

Having determined that the Plaintiffs may pursue their claims as a
class, the Circuit Court turns to the question of whether the
Defendants breached their contracts with each of the class members.
It concludes that the district court prematurely awarded summary
judgment to the Plaintiffs on their breach-of-contract claim.

First, the Circuit Court agrees with the district court that the
parties formed a contract, albeit a different one from that found
by the district court.  But it concludes that whether that contract
was breached -- and whether there were resulting damages -- are
questions that the district court must review in the first
instance.   Second, it finds that concludes that a contract was
formed between each class member and Quicken Loans.

Accordingly, the Circuit Court vacates and remands for further
proceedings.  On remand, the district court should consider whether
the Plaintiffs have demonstrated an absence of genuine issues of
material fact as to the other elements of a breach-of-contract
claim.  In conducting this analysis, the district court may
consider the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to the
extent that it is relevant for evaluating Quicken Loans'
performance of the contracts.

The Circuit Court reaches a different conclusion when it comes to
the Plaintiffs' claim under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and
Protection Act.  Although the claim is similar to the contract
claim -- in that both are based on the Defendants' alleged
misbehavior in the appraisal process --, it finds that there is a
key difference between the two: While breach of contract requires a
demonstration of damages, the Act does not.  Indeed, the Supreme
Court of Appeals of West Virginia has made plain that the Act is to
be construed broadly and that it is intended to fill gaps in
consumer protection left by the common law, such as in
breach-of-contract actions.

The Plaintiffs' final claim, against both Quicken Loans and TSI,
was for conspiracy.  The Defendants' only argument on appeal
related to that claim is that "the district court's
summary-judgment decision on the Plaintiffs' civil-conspiracy claim
was derivative of its ruling on the unconscionable-inducement
count."  And since the Defendants believe reversal to be
appropriate for the statutory claim, they argue the same for the
conspiracy claim.

Because the Circuit Court affirms the district court's decision to
grant summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on their statutory claim,
the argument fails.  And by not making any other arguments
regarding the claim, the Defendants have waived any such arguments
on appeal.  Accordingly, the Circuit Court also affirms the
district court's grant of summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on the
conspiracy claim.

For the foregoing reasons, Fourth Circuit affirms the district
court's decisions to grant class certification, grant summary
judgment to the Plaintiffs on their conspiracy and
unconscionable-inducement claims, and award statutory damages.
However, it vacates the district court's grant of summary judgment
to the Plaintiffs on their breach-of-contract claim and the related
damages award, and it remands that claim for further proceedings
consistent with its Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 10, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/paebar4n from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com --
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP, in Los Angeles, California, for
Appellants.

Deepak Gupta -- deepak@guptawessler.com -- GUPTA WESSLER PLLC, in
Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Helgi C. Walker -- hwalker@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN
& CRUTCHER LLP, in Washington, D.C.; William M. Jay --
wjay@goodwinlaw.com -- Thomas M. Hefferon --
thefferon@goodwinlaw.com -- Brooks R. Brown --
bbrown@goodwinlaw.com -- Keith Levenberg --
klevenberg@goodwinlaw.com -- in Washington, D.C., Edwina B. Clarke
-- eclarke@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, in Boston,
Massachusetts, for Appellants.

John W. Barrett -- JBARRETT@BAILEYGLASSER.COM -- Jonathan R.
Marshall -- JMARSHALL@BAILEYGLASSER.COM -- in Charleston, West
Virginia, Patricia M. Kipnis -- PKIPNIS@BAILEYGLASSER.COM -- BAILEY
& GLASSER LLP, in Cherry Hill, New Jersey; Gregory A. Beck, GUPTA
WESSLER PLLC, in Washington, D.C.; Jason E. Causey, James G.
Bordas, Jr., BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC, in Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellees.


RAWLINGS SPORTING: Class Suit Not Barred by Antitrust Exclusions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ysabelle Reyes, Esq., of Wiley Rein LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, applying California law, has held that
antitrust exclusions in two D&O policies did not bar coverage for a
class action against an insured sports equipment manufacturer
asserting violations of consumer protection laws. James River Ins.
Co. v. Rawlings Sporting Goods Co., 2021 WL 346418 (C.D. Cal. Jan.
25, 2021).

The insured sports equipment manufacturer produces baseball
equipment. A group of baseball bat buyers filed a class action
against the manufacturer, alleging that it misrepresented the
weight of its baseball bats in violation of several consumer
protection laws, including California's Unfair Competition Law,
False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The
manufacturer tendered the suit to its D&O insurer, which denied
coverage under policies issued to the manufacturer and its parent
company. The manufacturer's CGL insurer subsequently filed a
declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that its policy
did not cover the class action and asserting counterclaims against
the D&O insurer for allegedly breaching its duties to defend and
indemnify under the D&O policies. The manufacturer and the D&O
insurer both filed motions for summary judgment based on the
application of an exclusion for claims alleging "any violation of
any law" with respect to "anti-trust, business competition, unfair
trade practices or tortious interference."

The court concluded that the exclusion did not bar coverage and
interpreted the phrase "unfair trade practices" to refer to
anti-competitive business conduct, but not consumer protection
claims. The court reasoned that the antitrust exclusion did not
expressly include consumer protection claims or cite consumer
protection laws, opining that "[i]t would be strange for [the
insurer] to intend to include a consumer-protection component in an
exclusion titled 'Anti-Trust Exclusion' without mentioning words
such as 'fraud,' 'misrepresentation' or 'consumer protection.'" In
addition, the excluded conduct referred only to "anti-competitive
business practices," but not to "any conduct directed at
consumers." The court also noted that the policy did not
specifically eliminate coverage for false advertising or
misrepresentation in advertising or labeling. Accordingly, the
court granted the insured's motion for partial summary judgment and
denied the D&O insurer's motion for summary judgment. [GN]


RBC GLOBAL: Bennett Jones Attorneys Discuss Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Schiff, Esq., Mia Laity, Esq., and Ranjan Agarwal, Esq., of
Bennett Jones LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that in
McCorquodale v RBC Global Asset Management Inc., 2021 BCSC 144, the
British Columbia Supreme Court relied on the principle of
consistency in case law in applying a low bar to certification in
class proceedings. In doing so, B.C. continues to be one of the
friendliest Canadian jurisdictions for class action certification.
With changes to Ontario's class action legislation intended to
raise the bar for certification, it is anticipated that more
national class actions will be litigated in B.C.

McCorquodale is the second class action to be certified in Canada
regarding allegations of "closet indexing," involving a purportedly
actively managed fund merely tracking the stock selection of
benchmark indexes, such as the S&P/TSX composite. The first was
Stenzler v. TD Asset Management Inc., 2020 ONSC 111 (leave to
appeal denied: 2020 ONSC 5987).

In McCorquodale, the plaintiffs allege that since 2005 the
defendants charged clients high fees associated with actively
managed investment funds, all the while applying an index
investment strategy that mimicked the performance of benchmark
indexes, and that this was not disclosed to investors (the Closet
Index Strategy). The plaintiffs also pleaded that, as a result of
the Closet Index Strategy, the investment funds at issue did not
outperform the benchmark once management fees were taken into
account.

This case serves as a reminder that the pleadings test and "some
basis in fact" burden on plaintiffs remain low bars for
certification, but that the post-certification landscape is less
clear.

Upholding Fraud Pleadings
Despite the plaintiffs stating at the certification hearing that
they were not pleading fraud (and indeed amending their pleadings
to remove the words, "fraudulent" and "dishonest"), the court
certified fraud as a cause of action. The defendants argued the
plaintiffs failed to properly plead sufficient particulars. Rule
3-7(18) of the B.C. Supreme Court Civil Rules imposes an obligation
on parties pleading fraud to include "full particulars, with dates
and items if applicable." Despite the defendants' arguments and the
plaintiffs' concession, the court held that no further particulars
were needed because the plaintiffs pleaded that "throughout" the
class period the defendants represented that the funds were
actively managed.

No Narrowing Based on Limitations Defences
The defendants argued that the court should order a narrower class
definition because some class members' claims were likely out of
time pursuant to limitations provisions under the B.C. Securities
Act (among other securities legislation). The court quoted from
Justice Belobaba's decision on this point in Stenzler, holding that
the limitation period defence should be considered after
certification. To promote "certainty in the law," the court
followed Stenzler.

A Low Bar for "Some Basis in Fact"
The court held that, to certify common issues in this claim, it
needed to be satisfied that there is "some basis in fact" that the
defendants used the Closet Index Strategy. At the certification
hearing, the plaintiffs tendered an affidavit by an expert, which
was heavily challenged by the defendants and their respective
expert, and both sides also entered cross-examination transcripts
of the experts. The court held that the plaintiffs' expert analysis
provided "some basis in fact" notwithstanding that it was based on
the general comparison of performance to a benchmark index and
disputed assumptions. The court emphasized the low standard of
"some basis in fact" applicable at the certification stage.

Commonality and the Pleadings
The court also held that the plaintiffs' claims met the commonality
requirement for certification. The defendants argued that the
plaintiffs produced no evidence of a methodology to determine
class-wide loss because their expert witness did not address things
such as individual investor preferences and objectives. The
defendants also submitted that an examination of individual
management decisions would be required before common issues could
be advanced. However, the court accepted the plaintiffs' argument
that, individual matters would not have changed the overall impact
of the Closet Index Strategy. The court noted that if "it is found
at trial that RBC GAM used the Closet Index Strategy . . . and such
was not disclosed, then there is the common live argument that
Class Members paid or bore excess fees".

McCorquodale is a reminder of the low bar at certification, but
also of the burden to demonstrate commonality at trial. For
example, in this case, though the loss common issue was certified,
if the trial court finds that it cannot determine the effect of the
Closet Index Strategy without reference to individual peculiarities
-- and the plaintiffs do not put forward a methodology to account
for those -- the plaintiffs may well be unable to succeed on the
loss common issue. [GN]


REALTYSHARES INC: Faces Raudonis Suit Over Securities Offering
--------------------------------------------------------------
WALTER RAUDONIS, as trustee for the WALTER J. RAUDONIS 2016
REVOCABLE TRUST, DAVID HOLLAND and JEREMY DAVIS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOHN JARVE, JOHN
BUTTRICK, NIKOS BONATSOS and TYLER SOSIN, Case No. 1:21-cv-10329
(D. Mass. Feb. 26, 2021) is a class action arising from the
Defendants' roles as directors of RealtyShares and/or its
subsidiary RS Lending alleging that the Defendants are liable as
control persons of RealtyShares and/or RS Lending under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as liable as directors and
control persons under the California's Blue Sky Law, the Cal. Corp.
Code in connection with RealtyShares and RS Lending's offering of
securities.

RealtyShares and RS Lending offered and sold securities to
investors such as the Plaintiffs and the Classes through an online
investment platform for real estate crowdfunding services. Among
the investments they offered and sold to the Plaintiffs and Class
members in or around late 2017 and early 2018 were debt securities
related to millions of dollars' worth of loans for property
acquisition and construction of several restaurant franchises and
urgent care facilities at various locations across the United
States. The sponsor and effective borrower for these loans was
Franchise Growth, LLC.

In the offering documents for these investments, RealtyShares and
RS Lending represented they had conducted due diligence on
Franchise Growth, that Franchise Growth had a "reported track
record" and "extensive experience" in the franchising business and
that it anticipated the development of more than 400 units in 13
states within the next three years, the suit says.

The Plaintiffs contend that these material representations in the
offering documents by RealtyShares and RS Lending were untrue. The
reality was RealtyShares and RS Lending had done no effective due
diligence to substantiate Franchise Growth's "track record" or
"extensive experience." In fact, RealtyShares and RS Lending missed
or ignored a number of material facts that would have indicated
Franchise Growth was not a sound sponsor or borrower, including
without limitation pending litigation against it for failure to pay
legal bills and a prior bankruptcy and a multimillion-dollar
contract judgment against one of its principals, Mr. Bruce Arinaga.
In addition, contrary to their representations in the offering
documents, RealtyShares and RS Lending allowed Franchise Growth to
deplete the loan proceeds quickly, rapidly reducing the
loan-to-cost ratios beyond what RealtyShares and RS Lending had
promised investors.

In March 2019 and in the months thereafter, RealtyShares began
advising investors that Franchise Growth was defaulting on the
loans, that construction on the projects had ceased or had never
even started and that the loan funds were substantially depleted.

In or around May 2019, IIRR Management Services, LLC purchased
assets from RealtyShares and its subsidiaries, acquired the
RealtyShares platform and agreed to manage the remaining
investments and investors on the platform. Soon thereafter, IIRR
advised investors in the Franchise Growth-related securities that
they should expect to incur substantial losses, the Plaintiffs
add.

Allegedly, RealtyShares and RS Lending, in soliciting investors in
the Franchise Growth-related securities, knowingly or recklessly
misrepresented material facts and/or omitted to state material
facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. That caused the Plaintiffs and Class
members substantial losses. Realty Share and RS Lending also
offered Franchise Growth-related securities originating from
California by means of written communications that included untrue
statements of material fact and/or omitted to state material facts
necessary to make the statements, in light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading in violation of Cal.
Corp. Code section 25401, subjecting them to liability under Cal.
Corp. Code section 25501.

The Defendants, who were directors of RealtyShares and/or RS
Lending responsible for the companies' overall business operations
and strategy, are liable as control persons of RealtyShares and RS
Lending under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as under
Cal. Corp. Code section 25504.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and Class members are
entitled to recover from Defendants damages for their losses on the
Franchise Growth Investments under the Exchange Act. In addition,
the Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to recover from
Defendants the consideration paid for the securities, plus
interest, less any income received on the securities, under the
Cal. Corp. Code section 25501.

Plaintiff Holland's purchases are reflected in his certification.
Plaintiff Jeremy Davis is a resident of Scotland. In or around May
2018, he purchased $20,000 worth of debt securities related to a
Franchise Growth-sponsored loan for property acquisition and
construction of a Church's Chicken restaurant to be located at 2735
Calumet Trace, Owensboro, Kentucky.

RealtyShares owned and operated an online investment platform for
real estate crowd funding services, www.realtyshares.com. The
Individual Defendants are directors of RealtyShares. RS Lending is
a wholly owned subsidiary of RealtyShares and worked together with
RealtyShares to offer and sell the debt securities at issue. IIRR
is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
San Francisco, California. In or around May 2019, IIRR purchased
certain assets from RealtyShares and its subsidiaries, acquired the
RealtyShares Platform and contracted with RealtyShares to manage
the remaining investments and investors on the RealtyShares
Platform.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward F. Haber, Esq.
          Michelle Blauner, Esq.
          Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq.
          Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
          Patrick J. Vallely, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          2 Seaport Lane
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
          E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
                  mblauner@shulaw.com
                  imcloughlin@shulaw.com
                  astewart@shulaw.com
                  pvallely@shulaw.com

RECOVERY MANAGEMENT: Class Status Bid Filing Due Oct. 1
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL COLDIRON,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others, v. RECOVERY MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, doing business as Cargo Largo, Case No.
21-00012-CV-W-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered a
scheduling and trial order as follows:

   1. The case is scheduled for a jury trial, commencing at 8:30
      a.m., on June 27, 2022, at the United States District
      Courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri.

   2. A teleconference is set at 10:00 a.m., on May 26, 2022 to
      discuss the progress of the case and possible court-ordered
      mediation.

   3. A final pretrial conference, in this case, will be held at
      10:00 a.m., on June 10, 2022, at the United States District
      Courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri.

   4. Any motion to amend the pleadings and/or join additional
      parties shall be filed on or before May 14, 2021.

   5. The deadline to file the motion for class certification is
      October 1, 2021.

   6. All motions to strike expert designations or preclude expert

      testimony premised on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,

      Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) shall be filed on or before October

      29, 2021.

   7. All pretrial discovery authorized by the Federal Rules of
      Civil Procedure shall be completed on or before November 12,

      2021.

Recovery Management Corporation is a leader in the sale of
undelivered and excess inventory to wholesale and retail customers.


A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/2P953Sbat no extra charge.[CC]

RENEWABLE ENERGY: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), on March 2 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Ramsey v.
Renewable Energy Group, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:21-cv-01832) on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Renewable Energy Group, Inc. ("Renewable Energy" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: REGI) securities between May 3, 2018 and February 25,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from
this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

If you suffered a loss on your Renewable Energy investments or
would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover
your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your
contact information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/renewable-energy-group-inc/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On February 25, 2021, after the market closed, Renewable Energy
issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and full year
2020 financial results. Therein, the Company revealed that it would
restate "$38.2 million in cumulative revenue from January 2018
through September 30, 2020" because Renewable Energy was not the
"proper claimant for certain BTC payments on biodiesel it sold
between January 1, 2017 and September 30, 2020." Renewable Energy
further stated that it had reached an agreement with the Internal
Revenue Service "on a $40.5 million assessment, excluding interest"
to correct these claims.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.17, or 9.5%, over
two consecutive trading sessions to close at $77.77 per share on
February 26, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that due to failures in the diesel additive system,
petroleum diesel was not periodically added to certain loads by the
Company and was instead added by the Company's customers; (2) that,
as a result, Renewable Energy was not the proper claimant for
certain BTC payments on biodiesel it sold between January 1, 2017
and September 30, 2020; (3) that, as a result, Renewable Energy's
revenue and net income were overstated for certain periods; (4)
that there was a material weakness in the Company's internal
control over financial reporting related to the purchase and use of
the petroleum diesel gallons when blending with biodiesel; and (5)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the Renewable Energy
securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later
than 60 days from this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as
lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


RESIDEO TECH: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Resideo Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the securities class action suit entitled, In re Resideo
Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, 19-cv-02863, is still
pending.

The Company, the Company's former CEO Michael Nefkens, the
Company's former CFO Joseph Ragan, and the Company's former CIO
Niccolo de Masi are named defendants of a class action securities
suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
styled In re Resideo Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation,
19-cv-02863.

The Securities Litigation is a class action securities suit with
the class defined as all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired common stock of Resideo during the class period
of October 29, 2018 to November 6, 2019. The complaint asserts
claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, broadly alleging, among other things, that
the defendants (or some of them) made false and misleading
statements regarding, among other things, Resideo's business,
performance, the efficiency of its supply chain, operational and
administrative issues resulting from the spin-off from Honeywell,
certain business initiatives, and financial guidance in 2019.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 10,
2020. The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and a hearing
was held on the motion on December 1, 2020. The court has not yet
issued its decision regarding the motion to dismiss.

The Company and the plaintiffs are scheduled to participate in a
mediation on February 25, 2021, in an effort to settle the
Securities Litigation.

Resideo said, "There can be no assurance that a settlement will be
reached. If a settlement cannot be reached, the Company intends to
vigorously defend against the allegations in the Securities
Litigation. However, there can be no assurance that the defense
will be successful."

Resideo Technologies, Inc. is a leading global provider of critical
comfort, residential thermal solutions and security solutions
primarily in residential environments. The Company was incorporated
in Delaware on April 24, 2018, but was separated from Honeywell
International Inc. on October 29, 2018, becoming an independent
publicly-traded company as a result of a pro rata distribution of
the company's common stock to shareholders of Honeywell. The
company is based in Austin, Texas.

RHODE ISLAND: Has Until April 16 to Reply to Class Status Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN HANSON and RANDALL
PELLETIER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. SCOTT R. JENSEN, in his official capacity as Director
of the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training, Case No.
1:20-cv-00232 (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge William E. Smith entered an
order granting Defendant Jensen's Motion for Extension of Time to
File Response/Reply to motion to certify class.

Responses is due by April 16, 2021.

The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.

The RI Department of Labor and Training provides workforce
development, workforce security and workforce protection to the
state's workers, employers and citizens.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brenda D. Baum, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          150 South Main St.
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 274-4400 x 2294
          Facsimile: (401) 222-2995
          E-mail: bbaum@riag.ri.gov

ROWING BLAZERS: Martinez Seeks Full Website Access for Blind People
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROWING BLAZERS LTD., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01357 (E.D.N.Y., March 15, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's Website,
Rowingblazers.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the Website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1)
lack of alt-text on graphics, (2) inaccessible drop-down menus, (3)
lack of navigation links, (4) lack of adequate prompting and
labeling, (5) denial of keyboard access, (6) empty links that
contain no text, (7) redundant links where adjacent links go to the
same Uniform Resource Locator (URL) address, and (8) the
requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

Rowing Blazers Ltd. is a fashion company with its principal place
of business located at 217 Centre Street, New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Dan Shaked, Esq.
         SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
         14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
         Scarsdale, NY 10583
         Telephone: (917) 373-9128
         E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com

RPS HOLDINGS: James Seeks to Certify Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIOBHAN JAMES, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. RPS HOLDINGS, LLC,
d/b/a CAPITAL CABARET, Case No. 1:20-cv-00134-UA-LPA (M.D.N.C.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of this action and for
      court-authorized notice pursuant to section 216(b) of the
      Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA);

   2. approving the proposed notice of this action and the
      consent and opt-out forms;

   3. approving the production of names, last known mailing  
      addresses, last-known cell phone numbers, email addresses,
      and dates of employment of all putative plaintiffs within
      15 days of the Order;

   4. directing to distribute the Notice and Opt-in Form via
      first class mail and email to all putative plaintiffs of
      the conditionally certified collective, with a reminder
      mailing to be sent 45-days after the initial mailing to
      all non-responding putative plaintiffs; and

   5. requiring the Defendant to post the Notice and Consent
      Form in a conspicuous location within the dressing room at
      Defendant’s Capital Cabaret for the full 90-day Notice
      period.

RPS Holdings operates as a holding company. The Company, through
its subsidiaries, provides communication products such as video
conferencing equipment and network configuration, as well as offers
project management, installation, end user training, and on site
support services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 9,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eV4BSg
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A.
          HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
          E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com

SAINT LUKE'S HEALTH: April 26 Extension to File Reply Brief OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAGGIE ROHAN v. SAINT
LUKE'S HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., THE SAINT LUKE'S HEALTH SYSTEM
RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-25, Case No.
4:20-cv-00179-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the parties ask the Court to enter an
order that the Defendants' deadline to respond to Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification is extended to March 25, 2021, and
that Plaintiff's deadline to submit a reply brief is extended to
April 26, 2021.

On February 2, 2021, the Court granted the parties' Joint Motion to
Extend Deadlines for Class Certification Briefing. Under the
Court's Order, the Defendants' response to Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification is due on March 11, 2021, and Plaintiff's reply
brief is due on April 12, 2021.

Since the Court's Order, the parties have continued to engage in
good faith negotiations to potentially settle this case and have
made progress. To aid in their efforts, the parties are working
with a mediator, the Hon. Jay Daugherty, who is assisting the
parties in formulating and conveying offers and counteroffers. The
parties believe there is a legitimate chance of settlement. The
parties also are engaged in discussions to potentially reach a
cooperative resolution of the issues raised by Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification in the event that settlement negotiations
are unsuccessful. The requested extension will allow the parties to
continue to work with the mediator and focus on their negotiations
while conserving judicial and party resources by avoiding
potentially unnecessary time and expense associated with class
certification briefing, the Parties say.

A copy of the Parties motion dated March 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vTYLGW at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          8012 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 300
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863-5446
          Facsimile: (314)-863-5483
          E-mail: mboyko@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          Alexandra L. Serber, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
                  aserber@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          Oren Faircloth, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 South Main St., Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          E-mail: dneedham@ikrlaw.com
                  rizard@ikrlaw.com
                  mkindall@ikrlaw.com
                  ofaircloth@ikrlaw.com

               - and -

          Kristie Blunt-Welder, Esq.
          WELDER BLUNT WELDER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          4741 Central St., Suite 514
          Kansas City, Mo 64112
          Telephone: (844) 935-3373
          E-mail: kwelder@welderfirm.com

The attorneys for the Defendants Saint Luke's Health System, Inc.
and The Saint Luke's Health System Retirement Committee, are:

          Phillip G. Greenfield, Esq.
          GM LAW PC
          1201 Walnut, 20th Floor
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 471-7700
          E-mail: philg@gmlawpc.com

               - and -

          Lars C. Golumbic, Esq.
          Sean C. Abouchedid, Esq.
          Samuel I. Levin, Esq.
          Nate W. Ingraham, Esq.
          GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
          1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 857-0620
          E-mail: lgolumbic@groom.com
                  sabouchedid@groom.com
                  slevin@groom.com
                  ningraham@groom.com

SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS: Faces Class Action Over Robotexts in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the San
Francisco Giants baseball team and MLB Advanced Media LP are facing
a proposed class action in the Southern District of New York
alleging they sent unsolicited robotexts to consumers in violation
of federal law.

The Giants and MLB Media -- the interactive media and internet
company of Major League Baseball -- violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by transmitting advertisement and telemarketing text
messages to class members' cell phones using an automatic telephone
dialing system without prior express written consent, the complaint
alleges.

Plaintiff Kristina Lee alleges the unsolicited text messages
invaded her privacy, intruded upon her seclusion and solitude.

COURT: S.D.N.Y.
TRACK DOCKET: 21-cv-01719
COMPANY INFO: MLB Advanced Media LP [GN]



SEALAND CONTRACTORS: Reply to Class Status Bid Extended to March 29
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Infantino v. Sealand
Contractors Corp.., et al., Case No. e 6:20-cv-06782-EAW-MWP
(W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Marian W. Payson entered an order
granting the motion for extension of time to file response/reply re
motion to certify class conditional certification of a collective
action as follows:

   -- Any response papers must be filed and served on or before
      March 29, 2021;

   -- Any reply papers must be filed and served on or before April

      13, 2021; and

   -- Oral argument will be heard on April 27, 2021 at 3:00 p.m. or

      as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard.

Sealand is a heavy highway and bridge contractor.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OOxYLy at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sharon P. Stiller, Esq.
          ABRAMS, FENSTERMAN, FENSTERMAN EISMAN
          FORMATO, FERRARA, WOLF & CARONE, LLP
          www.abramslaw.com
          160 Linden Oaks
          Rochester, NeY 14625
          Telephone: (585) 218-9999
          Facsimile: (585) 218-0562


SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: D'Arcy Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
Peter D'Arcy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SEQUENTIAL BRANDS GROUP, INC., YEHUDA SHMIDMAN, KAREN
MURRAY, GARY KLEIN, and ANDREW COOPER, Case No. 2:21-cv-02305 (C.D.
Cal., March 16, 2021), is brought on behalf of persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Sequential
Brands Group securities between November 3, 2016 and December 11,
2020, inclusive; and seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 due to statements that were
materially false and/or misleading.

On November 3, 2016, Sequential Brands Group issued a press release
entitled "Sequential Brands Group Announces 2016 Third Quarter
Financial Results" (the "November 2016 Press Release"). The
November 2016 Press Release listed the Company's goodwill at
$305,126,000 and its total current assets at $1,427,303,000 for the
period ended September 30, 2016 (unaudited). On March 14, 2017,
Sequential Brands Group filed its annual report on Form 10-K with
the SEC, announcing the Company's financial and operating results
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the "2016 10-K"). The
2016 10-K was signed by Defendant Shmidman. Attached to the 2016
10-K were certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
("SOX") signed by Defendants Shmidman and Klein attesting to the
accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material
changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting
and the disclosure of all fraud.

On May 10, 2017, Sequential Brands Group filed a quarterly report
on Form 10-Q with the SEC, announcing the Company's financial and
operating results for the period year ended March 31, 2017 (the
"1Q17 10-Q"). The 1Q17 10-Q was signed by Defendant Klein. Attached
to the 1Q17 10-Q were certifications pursuant to SOX signed by
Defendants Murray and Klein attesting to the accuracy of financial
reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's
internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all
fraud.

According to the complaint, the statements were materially false
and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business,
operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) in
late 2016, the Company knew or should have known that its goodwill
was likely impaired; (2) the Company avoided and delayed the
material write down to goodwill in late 2016 through 2017; (3) the
Company understated its operating expenses and net loss and also
materially overstated its income from operations, goodwill, and
assets from late 2016 through 2017; (4) the Company's internal
controls were deficient; (5) the Company has failed to restate,
correct, or disclose relevant improprieties, deceptive conduct,
misstatements, omissions, and control violations; (6) as a result
of the foregoing, the Company was at greater risk of regulatory
scrutiny and enforcement; and (7) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

On November 9, 2017, Sequential Brands Group issued a press release
entitled "Sequential Brands Group Announces Third Quarter 2017
Financial Results" (the "November 2017 Press Release"). The
November 2017 Press Release announced that "included in the net
loss for the third quarter 2017 were non-cash impairment charges of
$36.5 million for indefinite-lived intangible assets related to the
trademarks of five of the Company's non-core brands," marking the
first time the Company noted its need for impairment charges
related to intangibles and its assets generally. On this news,
Sequential Brands Group's stock price fell $36.80 per share, or
38%, to close at $58.00 per share on November 9, 2017, damaging
investors, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

Sequential Brands Group, together with its subsidiaries, owns
various consumer brands. The company licenses its brands for a
range of product categories, including apparel, footwear, fashion
accessories, and home goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


SHALLU CONSTRUCTION: Workers Sue Over Unpaid Wages,  Harassment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Angel Granda Chica, Julio Raul Vega Cardenas, Diego Mauricio
Borga, Joshua Difo, Luis Alfonso Perez Patino, Angel Jose Aguayza
Dutan, Carlos Lliguichuzchca Dutan, Celio Neptali Lliguichuzchca,
Christian Bastian Munoz Pantoja, and the estate of Edison Panora,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated who were
employed by Shallu Construction Corp., Plaintiffs, v. Shallu
Construction Corp., Shalbro Construction Group LLC, Devinder Singh,
Amninder Singh and Simranjeet Singh, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-00869, (E.D. N.Y., February 17, 2021), is a class action that
arises out of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs the minimum
wage, overtime compensation, and other monies, as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor laws and for subjecting
them to a hostile work environment on the basis of their race in
violation of the New York City Human Rights Law and the New York
State Human Rights Law.

Defendants are in the construction business where Plaintiffs worked
as construction workers. They claim to be denied proper wages,
including but not limited to "off-the-clock" work and overtime
compensation. Defendants allegedly failed to comply with
recordkeeping requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York labor laws by failing to maintain proper and complete
timesheets or payroll records.

All named Plaintiffs, are of Latin American descent. They claim to
be subjected to derogatory conduct and comments towards Hispanics.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven Arenson, Esq.
      ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN
      200 Park Avenue, Suite 1700
      New York, NY 10166
      Tel: (212) 490-3600
      Fax: (212) 682-0278
      Email: steve@adklawfirm.com


SLENDERTONE DISTRIBUTION: Final Approval of Class Settlement OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE LOOMIS, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v.
SLENDERTONE DISTRIBUTION, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00854-MMA-KSC
(S.D. Calif.), the Plaintiff asks the Hon. Judge Michael M. Anello
to enter an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the
      class settlement, attorneys' fees and costs, and a class
      representative service award;

   2. certifying the Settlement Class for the purposes of the
      Settlement;

   3. approving the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate
      pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e);

   4. directing the parties to undertake the obligations set forth

      in the Settlement Agreement that arise out of this Order;

   5. awarding Class Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of
      $59,060.20 and costs in the amount of $939.80;

   6. awarding the Plaintiff a service award for work performed as

      the class representative in the amount of $10,000;

   7. directing the Clerk of Court to enter a separate judgment of

      dismissal; and

   8. directing the Clerk of Court to close the case.

Ms. Loomis brings several causes of action against Slendertone
alleging Defendant's advertising falsely and misleadingly suggests
that consumers of Defendant's Flex Belt will gain the health and
appearance benefits of traditional exercise.

Slendertone manufactures and distributes electrical muscle
stimulation devices to tone, firm and strengthen the muscles.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3rdwqrDat no extra charge.[CC]

SOLVAY SPECIALTY: Punitive Damages Claim in Severa Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENNETH SEVERA, et al., Plaintiffs v. SOLVAY SPECIALTY
POLYMERS USA, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-06906-NLH-KMW (D.N.J.), Judge Noel L. Hillman of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claims.

In the putative class action, the Plaintiffs assert claims against
the Defendants for damages arising from the Defendants' alleged
contamination of the municipal water supply in National Park, New
Jersey with poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"),
particularly perflouoronaonanoic acid ("PFNA") and
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA").

The Plaintiffs' amended complaint claims that Defendants, Solvay
Specialty and its predecessor Solvay Solexis, Inc., and Arkema,
Inc., discharged or were responsible for contamination of PFAS,
particularly PFNA and PFOA, into the air, water and groundwater
from their facility in West Deptford, New Jersey.  They claim that
over time, widespread PFNA and PFOA contamination has been
discovered in the potable well water of residents in southern New
Jersey who reside near this facility, as well as in municipal water
wells, such as the Plaintiffs' municipal water in National Park, at
levels that threaten the health of those exposed and which create a
public and private nuisance. Plaintiffs claim that these chemicals
are persistent in the environment, hazardous, and are not known to
ever break down in water, soil, air, or the human body.

The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants' improper disposal
consisted, in part, of dumping the PFNA and other PFAS into the
sewer system -- a process which the Defendants knew or should have
known would result in the discharge of the PFNA and other PFAS into
the environment.  The Plaintiffs further claim that the Defendants
also discharged these chemicals directly into the environment,
where they are subject to atmospheric dispersion and eventual
deposition associated with the prevailing wind patterns.  This
dispersion and deposition results in human exposure both on-site
and off-site of the plant.

The Plaintiffs' amended complaint states that in 2018, New Jersey
set the Maximum Contaminant Level ("MCL") for PFNA at 13 ppt, and
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ("NJDEP")
required water utilities to begin testing for PFNA in their water
beginning in the first quarter of 2019.  Since an effective date of
Jan. 22, 2020, National Park has been subject to an enforcement
action by NJDEP for violating the MCL for PFNA in samples taken
from its treatment plant.  Since at least April 2019, and each
quarter thereafter continuing to today, National Park Water
Department has notified its customers that its water is
contaminated with PFNA at levels above the MCL.

There are approximately 1,000 households and approximately 3,000
residents in National Park.  All or nearly all of the residents of
National Park rely on the National Park Water Department for the
provision of water and sewer services, and there are no households
in National Park that draw drinking water from private wells.
National Park Water Department has advised its customers to
purchase NSF-certified carbon filtration systems at their own
cost.

The Plaintiffs' amended complaint asserts six counts against the
Defendants: Count I -- Public Nuisance, Count II -- Private
Nuisance, Count III -- Trespass, Count IV -- Negligence, Count V --
New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act ("Spill Act"),
N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11 et seq., and Count VI -- Punitive Damages.
The Plaintiffs have also asserted putative class action claims
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), and
(b)(3).

The Plaintiffs propose three classes: Municipal Water Property
Damage Class, Municipal Water Nuisance Class, and Biomonitoring
Class.

The Plaintiffs' alleged damages include: purchasing water
filtration systems, which are reasonable and necessary to abate the
contamination of PFNA in the water; locating and purchasing water
for drinking, cooking, cleaning, and other uses, which is an
additional reasonable and necessary response to the contamination
when such filtration is not available; a diminution in value and
nuisance of their property; the interference with the rights of
Plaintiffs to use and enjoy their property; substantial expense
incurred and will incur in the future related to the restoration of
a clean water supply or access to an alternate water source; and
exposure and consuming drinking water contaminated with PFNA, which
puts the Plaintiffs at significant risk of developing medical
conditions associated with exposure to PFNA.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended
complaint.  They assert the following arguments to support their
motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint: (1) the
Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims because they have
not plausibly alleged concrete injuries, and correspondingly, the
Plaintiffs cannot show that the Defendants proximately caused their
alleged injuries because they are too remote, and they are
derivative rather than direct; (2) the Plaintiffs allege all their
claims against the Defendants collectively without identifying
which Defendant caused which alleged injuries, and the Plaintiffs'
amended complaint fails to provide sufficient facts to support
their counts for public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass,
negligence, damages under the Spill Act, the Plaintiffs' request
for medical monitoring, and punitive damages.

The Plaintiffs have opposed the Defendants' motions.

Judge Hillman concludes that the Plaintiffs' only source of water
on their properties for drinking and other household use is their
municipality's water supply.  Between 1988 and 2010, the Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants discharged from the nearby West Deptford
plant various PFAS, which persist in the environment, into the
sewer system, resulting in groundwater and atmospheric
contamination.  In 2019, the Plaintiffs learned that their water
supply contained, and continues to contain, one form of PFAS --
PFNA -- at levels that exceeded New Jersey's Maximum Contaminant
Level.

The Plaintiffs claim various forms of harm from this contamination,
including loss of property value, costs to filter the water and
purchase bottled water, and the potential for serious health
consequences due to the bioaccumulation of PFNA.  They have
sufficiently pleaded facts to support their standing to bring their
claims.  The Plaintiffs have also pleaded enough facts to make out
a plausible claim that the Defendants' actions caused the
Plaintiffs' alleged injuries.  These same pleaded facts also make
plausible all substantive state law counts asserted against
Defendants in Plaintiffs' amended complaint.  Consequently, the
Defendants' motions to dismiss will be granted as to the dismissal
of the Plaintiffs' count for punitive damages as a stand-alone
count, but denied in all other respects.

An appropriate Order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 10, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/r8ktrxpx from Leagle.com.

DAVID M. CEDAR -- dcedar@cedarlawfirm.com -- SHAUNA LAUREN
FRIEDMAN, ALAN HERSCHEL SKLARSKY, WILLIAMS CEDAR, LLC, in
HADDONFIELD, NEW JERSEY, On behalf of Plaintiffs.

KEGAN ANDREW BROWN -- kegan.brown@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP,
in NEW YORK CITY, On behalf of Defendant Solvay Specialty Polymers
USA, LLC, successor by merger to Solvay Solexis, Inc.

JOHN D. NORTH -- jnorth@greenbaumlaw.com -- IRENE HSIEH, JEMI
GOULIAN LUCEY -- jlucey@greenbaumlaw.com -- MARJAN MOUSSAVIAN --
mmoussavian@greenbaumlaw.com -- GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS,
LLP, in SELIN, NEW JERSEY.

KHRISTOPH ANDREAS BECKER -- kbecker@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE &
JOHNSON LLP, in NEW YORK CITY.

ROBERT L. SHUFTAN (pro hac vice) -- rshuftan@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE
& JOHNSON LLP, in CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

JOO CHA WEBB (pro hac vice) -- jwebb@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE &
JOHNSON LLP, in LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, On behalf of Defendant
Arkema, Inc.


SONY INTERACTIVE: To Halt Movie, TV Rentals on Playstation Store
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Oloman, writing for IGNSoutheast Asia, reports that Sony has
announced that it is going to discontinue movie and TV purchases
and rentals on the PlayStation Store.

Revealed on the PlayStation Blog, the store will "no longer offer
movie and TV purchases and rentals through PlayStation Store as of
August 31, 2021. According to Sony, the decision was made after
observing "tremendous growth" from PlayStation fans using
"subscription-based and ad-based entertainment streaming services,"
such as Netflix, YouTube, Disney + and others.

Users will still have access to the content they've purchased
beyond the August 31 deadline, with the movies and TV shows
available for "on-demand playback" across the PS4 and PS5, as well
as mobile devices.

Sony rounded off the post by saying that the company looks forward
to "further enhancing the entertainment experience on PlayStation."
Perhaps we'll see something to replace this system in the future
but, for now, Sony is shuttering the service as it observes the
trend towards streaming content.

In other Sony news, here's everything you need to know about the
PS5 DualSense controller drift, as a class-action lawsuit is filed
related to the issue. A Bloomberg report recently claimed that
internal storage upgrades would be coming to the PlayStation 5 via
a firmware patch arriving later this year.

Sony recently held a State of Play showcase, revealing a number of
games including Final Fantasy VII Remake Intergrade and Sloclap's
Sufi. [GN]


SPRINGS WINDOW: Poland FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. Tenn. to W.D. Wis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as MICHELE POLAND, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SPRINGS WINDOW FASHIONS, LLC, Case
No. 2:20-cv-02489, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin on March 12, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Wisconsin assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00165 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated field sales representatives overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Springs Window Fashions, LLC is a window covering company based in
Middleton, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
         J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
         Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
         Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
         Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
         B. Alan Matthews, Esq.
         JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
         Attorneys at Law
         262 German Oak Drive
         Memphis, TN 38018
         Telephone: (901) 754-8001
         Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
         E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 rturner@jsyc.com
                 nbishop@jsyc.com
                 rmorelli@jsyc.com
                 amatthews@jsyc.com

ST. LOUIS, MO: Dixon et al., Seek to Amend Class Definition
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID DIXON, et al., v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00112-AGF (E.D. Mo.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order amending the class
definition and create a subclass.

In particular, the Plaintiffs request that the Court amend the
class definition to include "all persons who are or will be
detained pretrial in jails operated by the City of St. Louis
pursuant to an order of the 22nd Judicial Circuit," and that the
Court convert the originally certified class to a subclass.

St. Louis is a major city in Missouri along the Mississippi River.
Its iconic, 630-ft. Gateway Arch, built in the 1960s, honors the
early 19th-century explorations of Lewis and Clark and America's
westward expansion in general.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 10, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lE0onb at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Friedman, Esq.
          Seth Wayne, Esq.
          Robert Friedman, Esq.
          Mary B. McCord, Esq.
          INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
          ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION
          Georgetown University Law Center
          600 New Jersey Ave. NW
          Washington, D.C. 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662-9042
          E-mail: sw1098@georgetown.edu
                  rdf34@georgetown.edu
                  mbm7@georgetown.edu

               - and -

          Maureen Hanlon, Esq.
          Blake A. Strode, Esq.
          Michael-John Voss, Esq.
          Jacki Langum, Esq.
          Emanuel Powell, Esq.
          John M. Waldron, Esq.
          ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, INC.
          440 N. 4th Street, Suite 390
          Saint Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (855) 724-2489
          Facsimile: (314) 925-1307
          E-mail: bstrode@archcitydefenders.org
                  mjvoss@archcitydefenders.org
                  jlangum@archcitydefenders.org
                  epowell@archcitydefenders.org
                  mhanlon@archcitydefenders.org
                  jwaldron@archcitydefenders.org

               - and -

          Thomas B. Harvey, Esq.
          Miriam R. Nemeth, Esq.
          ADVANCEMENT PROJECT
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 728-9557
          Facsimile: (202) 728-9558
          E-mail: tharvey@advancementproject.org
                  mnemeth@advancementproject.org

               - and -

          Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          910 17th Street NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 599-0953
          Facsimile: (202) 609-8030
          E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org

STATE FARM: Cranfield Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Policyholders
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES CRANFIELD, etc.,
et al., v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No.
1:16-cv-01273-CAB (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order

   1. granting motion for class certification on behalf of:

      "All Defendant policyholders under any property policies
      issued by Defendant who made: (1) a structural damage claim
      for property located in the State of Ohio; and (2) which
      resulted in an actual cash value payment from which "non-
      material depreciation" was withheld from the policyholder; or

      which should have resulted in an actual cash value payment
      but for the withholding of "non-material depreciation"
      causing the loss to drop below the applicable
      deductible;"

      a. In this definition, "non-material depreciation" means
         application of either the "depreciate removal,"
         "depreciate non-material" and/or "depreciate overhead and

         profit" option settings within Xactimate software.

      b. The class period for the proposed class is the maximum
         time period as allowed by applicable law .

      c. The class excludes all claims arising under policy forms
         expressly permitting the "depreciation" of "labor" within

         the text of the policy form and any claims in which the
         initial actual cash value payment exhausted the applicable

         limits of insurance.

      d. Excluded from the Class are: (1) all persons or entities
         that received payment from Defendant in the full amount of

         insurance shown on the declarations page; (2) Defendant
         and its affiliates, officers or directors; (3) members of

         the judiciary and their staff to whom this action is
         assigned; and (4) Plaintiff's counsel.

   2. appointing him a as class representative, and that
      Condominiums at Northpointe Association and Christina
      Ermidis, be appointed as additional class representatives;
      and

   3. appointing his counsel as class counsel.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company was formed in 1935 to provide
property insurance for State Farm customers in the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 10,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sa5cmZ
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are:

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: (440) 352-3391
          Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
          E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com

               - and -

          James A. DeRoche, Esq.
          GARSON JOHNSON LLC
          2900 Detroit Avenue
          Van Roy Building 2nd Floor
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-9330
          Facsimile: (216) 696-8558
          E-mail: jderoche@garson.com

               - and -

          R. Eric Kennedy, Esq.
          Daniel P. Goetz, Esq.
          WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS CO., L.P.A.
          1600 Midland Building
          101 Prospect Ave., West
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 781-1111
          Facsimile: (216) 781-6747
          E-mail: ekennedy@weismanlaw.com
                  dgoetz@weismanlaw.com

               - and -

          Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
          MEHR, FAIRBANKS & PETERSON
          TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
          201 West Short Street, Suite 800
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 225-3731
          Facsimile: (859) 225-3830
          E-mail: edp@austinmehr.com

               - and -

          Stephen G. Whetstone, Esq.
          WHETSTONE LEGAL, LLC
          P.O. Box 6
          2 N. Main Street, Unit 2
          Thornville, OH 43076
          Telephone: (740) 974-7730
          E-mail: steve@whetstonelegal.com

STATE FARM: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Tufano Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL TUFANO, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-15995
(9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms
the district court's order granting State Farm's motion to dismiss
Tufano's first amended complaint for failure to state any plausible
claims.

The case concerns State Farm's refusal to pay Tufano for the
diminished value of his car after it was fully repaired.  In 2017,
Tufano was involved in a collision with another driver, Rosalio
Acero.  Both Tufano and Acero were insured by State Farm.

Mr. Tufano's policy includes collision coverage that gave State
Farm the choice between repairing or replacing the car, and State
Farm elected to, and did, repair Tufano's car.  Tufano's policy
coverage excluded recovery for "any reduction in the value of the
covered vehicle after it has been repaired, as compared to its
value before it was damaged."  Nonetheless, Tufano filed an
insurance claim for the diminished value of his repaired car, which
State Farm denied.

Mr. Tufano then brought the putative class action, alleging breach
of contract (on both his own and Acero's policies) and various
state and federal fraud claims.  The district court dismissed
Tufano's complaint because the claims under his own policy were
precluded by applicable case law, he had no basis to bring claims
under Acero's policy, and the fraud claims lacked the requisite
particularity.

On appeal, Tufano argues that his policy's exclusion of coverage
for the diminished value of his car violates California law and
public policy.

But, the Ninth Circuit notes that the California courts have
consistently held that such insurance policies are permissible.
Its nonprecedential decision in Copelan v. Infinity Insurance Co.,
728 F. App'x 724 (9th Cir. 2018), did not suggest otherwise.   
Mr. Tufano further contends that State Farm breached the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

But in Baldwin v. AAA N. Cal., Nev. & Utah Ins. Exch., 204
Cal.Rptr.3d 433, 441-42 (Ct. App. 2016), the Ninth Circuit
explained that "an insurer does not act in bad faith by repairing,
as promised in the policy, the insured's vehicle, and rejected the
plaintiff's argument that his insurer improperly excluded coverage
for his car's diminished value."  Thus, it says Tufano has not
plausibly alleged bad faith.  Because Tufano's claim under his own
policy is based on the contract (and there is no bad faith),
California Civil Jury Instruction No. 3903J, which allows litigants
to recover the diminished value of a car in tort actions, is
irrelevant.

Mr. Tufano also attempts to recover diminished value from State
Farm under Acero's liability coverage.

However, to directly sue State Farm based on Acero's policy, Tufano
must first obtain a court judgment against Acero, the Ninth Circuit
holds.  Otherwise, it says he is a stranger to Acero's insurance
policy with State Farm and lacks standing to enforce Acero's
contractual rights.  It explains that there is no evidence that
Tufano has obtained a judgment against Acero.  Rather, Tufano
contends that he does not need a judgment, because his position is
like that of an excess insurer in an equitable subrogation action,
who can proceed without a judgment against a primary insurer.  But
"actions between liability insurers are not based on contract," so
insurers may resolve disputes between themselves "without the
limits imposed in other contexts by the direct-action
proscription." Because Tufano's action against State Farm is based
on Acero's insurance contract, he lacks standing to sue based on
Acero's policy.

Finally, Tufano alleges that State Farm misrepresented its products
as "insurance," which led him to think he was purchasing coverage
for the diminished value of his car.  Based on these allegations,
he contends that State Farm violated California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), False Advertising Law ("FAL"), and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), as well as the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").

The Ninth Circuit notes that the UCL and FAL claims are implausible
under the "reasonable consumer" standard.  The reasonable consumer
would not think the term "insurance" means that the policy will
always cover diminished value, because consumers know that
insurance policies are customizable and contain all types of
exclusions.  The CLRA claim fails because the CLRA applies only to
transactions involving tangible goods and services, and insurance
is neither a tangible good nor a service.  The RICO claim is
predicated on Tufano's allegation that State Farm's advertising of
its products as "insurance" constitutes mail fraud or wire fraud.
Tufano has not plausibly alleged that State Farm's advertising was
misleading, so he has not shown that State Farm formed a scheme to
defraud him, as required to establish mail or wire fraud.  Without
plausible allegations of mail or wire fraud, the Circuit Court
holds that there is no predicate racketeering activity, and
Tufano's RICO claim fails.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirms.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/n2pduxj2 from Leagle.com.


SUN-MAID GROWERS: Faces FLSA Class Action Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Burden, writing for HRDive, reports that a former employee at
a California Sun-Maid fruit processing plant has alleged in a
putative collective action that the employer violated both the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state law in various ways (Velaquez
v. Sun-Maid Growers of California, No. 1:21-cv-00194 (E.D. Calif.,
Feb. 15, 2021)).

Among other things, the plaintiff said Sun-Maid required employees
to work while they were clocked out for unpaid breaks. It also
offered nondiscretionary incentive pay for performance goals but
failed to include that pay in workers' regular rates for overtime
purposes, the suit alleged.

Sun-Maid did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
[GN]



SUNRUN INC: Consolidated Suit vs. Vivint Solar Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Vivint Solar, Inc.
continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit
currently pending before the District of Utah.

On October 8, 2020, the company completed the acquisition of Vivint
Solar, Inc. a leading full-service residential solar provider in
the United States, at an estimated purchase price of $5.0 billion,
pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 6,
2020, by and among Sunrun, Vivint Solar and Viking Merger Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and direct wholly-owned subsidiary of
the Company.

In October 2019, two shareholders filed separate putative class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York (Crumrine v. Vivint Solar, Inc. and Li v. Vivint Solar, Inc.)
purportedly on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated.

The lawsuits purport to allege violations of Federal Securities
Laws.

In March 2020, the court consolidated the two actions and appointed
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel to represent the alleged putative
class.

Subsequently, in December 2020, the Eastern District of New York
transferred the case to the District of Utah, where it is now
pending.

Vivint Solar disputes the allegations in the complaint. The Company
is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, at this time.

Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. It also sells solar energy systems and products,
such as panels and racking, as well as solar leads generated to
customers. The company markets and sells its products through
direct-to-consumer approach across online, retail, mass media,
digital media, canvassing, field marketing, and referral channels,
as well as its partner network. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.

SUNRUN INC: Dekker Suit Against Vivint Solar Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Vivint Solar, Inc.
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Dekker
v. Vivint Solar, Inc.

On October 8, 2020, the company completed the acquisition of Vivint
Solar, Inc. a leading full-service residential solar provider in
the United States, at an estimated purchase price of $5.0 billion,
pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 6,
2020, by and among Sunrun, Vivint Solar and Viking Merger Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and direct wholly-owned subsidiary of
the Company.

In December 2019, ten customers who signed residential power
purchase agreements named Vivint Solar in a putative class action
lawsuit captioned Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc. (N.D. Cal.),
alleging that the agreements contain unlawful termination fee
provisions. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint.


On January 17, 2020, Vivint Solar moved to compel arbitration with
respect to nine of the ten plaintiffs whose contracts included
arbitration provisions. The court issued an order compelling eight
plaintiffs to pursue their claims in arbitration but subsequently
rescinded the order as to certain plaintiffs.

At this time, certain plaintiffs' claims remain pending before the
court and other plaintiffs' claims are in arbitration. The Company
is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, at this time.

Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. It also sells solar energy systems and products,
such as panels and racking, as well as solar leads generated to
customers. The company markets and sells its products through
direct-to-consumer approach across online, retail, mass media,
digital media, canvassing, field marketing, and referral channels,
as well as its partner network. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.

SUNRUN INC: May 6 Final Approval Hearing on Loftus Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the settlement final
approval hearing in Loftus et al. v. Sunrun Inc., is set on May 6,
2021

On April 8, 2019, a putative class action captioned Loftus et al.
v. Sunrun Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-01608, was filed in the United
States District Court, Northern District of California.

The complaint generally alleges violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") on behalf of an individual and
putative classes of persons alleged to be similarly situated.

Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on June 26, 2019, adding
defendant MediaMix 365, LLC, also asserting individual and putative
class claims under the TCPA, along with claims under the California
Invasion of Privacy Act.

In the amended version of their Complaint, plaintiffs seek
statutory damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees and costs on behalf of themselves and the absent purported
classes.

Most, if not all, of the claims asserted in the lawsuit relate to
activities allegedly engaged in by third-party vendors, for which
the Company denies any responsibility.

While the Company believes that the claims against it are without
merit, in view of the cost and risk of continuing to defend the
action, it has reached an agreement with plaintiffs to settle the
lawsuit on a class-wide basis for $5.5 million, which was accrued
as of June 30, 2020, in exchange for a release of all claims that
were or could have been asserted in the litigation.

The settlement is subject to court approval.

Preliminary approval was granted on September 25, 2020 and the
court has scheduled the final approval hearing for May 6, 2021.

Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. It also sells solar energy systems and products,
such as panels and racking, as well as solar leads generated to
customers. The company markets and sells its products through
direct-to-consumer approach across online, retail, mass media,
digital media, canvassing, field marketing, and referral channels,
as well as its partner network. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.

T-MOBILE USA: Goldstein FSCA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JASON GOLDSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Case No.
CACE-21-001752, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 12,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 9:21-cv-80545 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Florida Security of Communications Act by intercepting the
electronic communications of the Plaintiff and other Florida
residents.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. is an American wireless network operator,
headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Martin B. Goldberg, Esq.
         LASH & GOLDBERG LLP
         Miami Tower, 100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 1200
         Miami, FL 33131-2158
         Telephone: (305) 347-4040
         Facsimile: (305) 347-3050
         E-mail: mgoldberg@lashgoldberg.com

                - and –

         Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq.
         Donald M. Houser, Esq.
         ALSTON & BIRD LLP
         1201 West Peachtree Street
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Telephone: (404) 881-7000
         Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
         E-mail: kristy.brown@alston.com
                 donald.houser@alston.com

T-MOBILE USA: Grant FCRA Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JUSTIN GRANT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Case No.
20STCV48067, was removed from the Superior Court of California for
the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on March 12, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-02268 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, the California Civil Code, and the Unfair
Competition Law including failure to make proper disclosures,
failure to obtain proper authorization, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to accurately pay overtime wages, failure to provide
lawful meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods,
failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from employment,
failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to
reimburse necessary expenses, and unfair business practices.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. is an American wireless network operator,
headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Keith A. Jacoby, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
         2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
         Telephone: (310) 553-0308
         Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
         E-mail: kjacoby@littler.com

                - and –

         Gregory G. Iskander, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
         Treat Towers
         1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
         Walnut Creek, CA 94597
         Telephone: (925) 932-2468
         Facsimile: (925) 946-9809
         E-mail: giskander@littler.com

                - and –

         Alison S. Hightower, Esq.
         Tiana Harding, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
         333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 433-1940
         Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
         E-mail: ahightower@littler.com
                 tharding@littler.com

TARONIS TECHNOLOGIES: Class Status Granted in Zhu Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kui Zhu, et al., v.
Taronis Technologies Incorporated, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-04529-GMS (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge G. Murray Snow entered
an order:

   1. granting class certification for settlement purposes:

      "all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
      Taronis Technologies, Inc. common stock between January 28,
       2019 and February 12, 2019, both dates inclusive
      (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby;"

      Excluded from the Class by definition are: Defendants,
      current and former officers and directors of Taronis, members

      of their Immediate Families and their legal representatives,

      heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which the
      Defendants have or had a controlling interest;

   2. certifying the Lead Plaintiff as class representative for the

      Class and appointing Lead Counsel as class counsel for the
      Class; and

   3. awarding the Plaintiff's $425,000, 25% of the Settlement
      Amount in fees, together with interest thereon, which the
      Court finds to be fair and reasonable, and $30,303.42 in
      reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses;

   4. awarding the Lead Plaintiff $2,600, which the Court finds to

      be fair and reasonable.

This matter concerns an alleged fraudulent scheme to artificially
inflate the market price of Taronis common stock by deceiving the
investing public about the existence of a material contract between
Taronis and the City of San Diego.

The Plaintiffs allege that the market price of Taronis common stock
promptly increased over 25% after news of the San Diego contract
was published.

Taronis is an energy company that offers technology solutions to
create, process, and produce hydrogen-based fuel. On January 28,
2019 Taronis disclosed in an SEC filing and related press release
("Press Release") that the City of San Diego elected to use
Taronis's MagneGas2 as its fuel of choice.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3c4pc4B at no extra charge.[CC]

TD BANK: Faces Nelipa EFTA Suit Over Unauthorized Transactions
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUDMILA NELIPA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:21-cv-01092 (March 1, 2021),
seeks remedy the harm caused by TD Bank's illegal behavior and
ensure that practices cannot continue going forward.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a victim of fraud. The
perpetrator, who is unknown to Plaintiff, fraudulently
misrepresented themselves as a TD Bank representative in a phone
call, in a successful effort to obtain Plaintiff's account
information and transaction approval. The perpetrator used this
information to transfer and withdraw $2,500 from Plaintiff's
checking account.

The Plaintiff disputed the charges with Defendant TD Bank, but TD
Bank has refused to treat the transactions as unauthorized. TD
Bank's attempt to hold Plaintiff liable directly violates the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA"), which protects consumers
from liability for unauthorized transfers. It also breaches TD
Bank's own promises regarding customer liability for unauthorized
transfers, the Plaintiff asserts.

TD Bank also allegedly violated the EFTA by denying claims of
unauthorized transactions without providing any written explanation
and without providing to the consumer the documents TD Bank
reviewed during the investigation or even notice to the consumer of
the consumer's right to investigation documents.

Both an explanation of the denial and a notice of the right to
request these materials are required under the EFTA.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen of New York residing
in Staten Island, New York (Richmond County).

TD Bank is a national banking association.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq.
          SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP
          80 Broad Street, Suite 1301
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 500-6114
          Facsimile: (646) 612-7996
          E-mail: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net

               - and -

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Ryan Tack-Hooper, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  ryan@terrellmarshall.com

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Certification OK'd in Securities Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE TEVA SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
3:17-cv-00558-SRU (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill
entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   2. appointing the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board and
      Anchorage Police & Fire Retirement System as Class
      Representatives;

   3. appointing Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as Class Counsel; and

   4. appointing Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP as Class
      Liaison Counsel.

   5. denying the Defendants' Daubert motion to exclude the
      opinions and strike the reports of the Plaintiffs' expert.

The certified class is defined as follows:

   (1) As to claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, all
       persons and entities who, in domestic transactions,
       purchased o otherwise acquired the following securities
       during the period from February 6, 2014 through May 10,
       2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged
       thereby:

       a. Teva American Depositary Shares ("ADS");


       b. Teva 7.00% mandatory convertible preferred shares issued

          on or about December 3, 2015 and January 6, 2016
          ("Preferred Shares");

      c. The following Teva Finance U.S.-dollar-denominated senior

         notes issued on or about July 21, 2016:

         i. 1.400% Senior Notes due July 20, 2018 ("2018 Notes");

        ii. 1.700% Senior Notes due July 19, 2019 ("2019 Notes");

       iii. 2.200% Senior Notes due July 21, 2021 ("2021 Notes");

        iv. 2.800% Senior Notes due July 21, 2023 ("2023 Notes");

         v. 3.150% Senior Notes due October 1, 2026 ("2026 Notes");

            and

        vi. 4.100% Senior Notes due October 1, 2046 ("2046 Notes")
          (collectively, the "Notes"); and

   (2) As to claims under the Securities Act of 1933, all persons
       and entities who, in domestic transactions, purchased or
       otherwise acquired ADS, Preferred Shares, and Notes pursuant

       or traceable to the offerings of ADS and Preferred Shares
       completed on or about December 3, 2015 and January 6, 2016,

       or the offering of the Notes completed on or about July 21,

       2016; and as to the alleged additional state-law claims, all

       persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired ADS

       pursuant to Teva's Employee Stock Purchase Plan for U.S.
       Employees ("ESPP") during the Class Period, and were damaged

       thereby.

This consolidated action consists of 25 separate cases. In those
cases, numerous plaintiffs have sued Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries, Ltd. (Teva), various Teva subsidiaries, and several
current and former employees and officers of Teva. The plaintiffs
allege that the defendants violated federal and state securities
laws because they misrepresented the reasons for Teva's financial
success. More specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants publicly attributed Teva's success to good business
decisions when, in fact, Teva was thriving because it was
artificially and collusively inflating the prices of certain
generic drugs that it manufactured.

Teva is a global pharmaceutical company with headquarters in Petah
Tikva, Israel. It specializes primarily in generic drugs, but other
business interests include active pharmaceutical ingredients and,
to a lesser extent, proprietary pharmaceuticals.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s8L8Ba at no extra charge.[CC]

TIKTOK INC: Judge Rejects $92MM Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
on Tuesday declined to approve a $92 million class action
settlement with TikTok Inc., raising several questions about the
predicted claims rate and proposed notice plan.

At a preliminary approval hearing, U.S. District Judge John Lee of
the Northern District of Illinois wanted more information as to why
class members would not receive notice of the settlement through
TikTok's own app, which might improve the predicted claims rate of
less than 2%. [GN]



TRADEWEB MARKETS: Bid to Junk Treasuries Securities Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tradeweb Markets Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the consolidated putative securities class action suit
entitled, In re Treasuries Securities Auction Antitrust Litigation,
No. 1:15-md-2673 (S.D.N.Y.) (PGG), is pending.

In December 2015, more than 40 substantially similar putative class
action complaints filed by individual investors, pension funds,
retirement funds, insurance companies, municipalities, hedge funds
and banks were consolidated in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York under the caption In re
Treasuries Securities Auction Antitrust Litigation, No.
1:15-md-2673 (S.D.N.Y.) (PGG).

In November 2017, the plaintiffs in these consolidated actions
filed a consolidated amended complaint in which they allege (a) an
"Auction Conspiracy" among primary dealers of United States
Treasury securities in auctions for Treasury securities and in the
"when-issued" and secondary markets for such securities and other
derivative financial products; and (b) a "Boycott Conspiracy" among
certain primary dealers and Tradeweb Markets LLC, Tradeweb IDB
Markets, Inc. and Dealerweb Inc.

The plaintiffs purport to represent two putative classes: an
"Auction Class" consisting of all persons who purchased Treasuries
in an auction, transacted in Treasuries with a dealer defendant or
through an exchange from January 1, 2007 through June 8, 2015, and
a "Boycott Class" consisting of all persons who transacted in
Treasury securities in the secondary market with a dealer defendant
from November 15, 2013 to the present.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Tradeweb
Parties participated in the alleged "Boycott Conspiracy" through
which certain primary dealers are alleged to have boycotted trading
platforms permitting "all-to-all" trading of Treasury securities.

The complaint asserts claims against the Tradeweb Parties under
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and for unjust enrichment
under state law and seeks to permanently enjoin the Tradeweb
Parties and the dealer defendants from maintaining the alleged
"Boycott Conspiracy" and an award of treble damages, costs and
expenses.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss in February 2018, including a
separate motion to dismiss filed by the Tradeweb Parties. The
motions to dismiss are pending.

Tradeweb said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses to the
claims set forth in the complaint and intend to continue to
vigorously defend our position."

Tradeweb Markets Inc. is a leader in building and operating
electronic marketplaces for its global network of clients across
financial ecosystem. The company's network is comprised of clients
across the institutional, wholesale and retail client sectors,
including many of the largest global asset managers, hedge funds,
insurance companies, central banks, banks and dealers, proprietary
trading firms and retail brokerage and financial advisory firms, as
well as regional dealers. The company is based in New York, New
York.

TRANSUNION LLC: SCOTUS Expected to Address Art. III Standing Issue
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriela Bersuder, Esq., and Jane Metcalf, Esq., of Patterson
Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that in
a significant case for class action litigants, the Supreme Court is
expected to resolve a circuit split over the standing requirements
applicable to absent class members, and weigh in on the
circumstances -- if any -- under which statutory violations can be
deemed to give rise to Article III injury for such class members.
The Supreme Court's holding may have far-reaching implications for
many varieties of class actions, including consumer protection and
data privacy suits.

In TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, Dkt. No. 20-297, the credit reporting
agency seeks to decertify a Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA")
class action and vacate a $40 million judgment. TransUnion contends
that the district court erroneously certified a class of consumers
in which the named plaintiff's injuries were "atypical" and the
"vast bulk of the class suffered no Article III injury at all."[1]
The Supreme Court will hear argument on March 30, 2021.

TransUnion v. Ramirez Facts

TransUnion is a bit of a unicorn, both because it is one of the
rare class actions to be litigated to a jury verdict and because it
involves a named class representative with an unusually sympathetic
story. However, it is similar to many other class actions in that
the named plaintiff purports to assert statutory claims on behalf
of thousands of absent class members, who may have suffered no
concrete injury at all.

The litigation arose from a very unfortunate case of mistaken
identity. Sergio Ramirez was in the middle of a car purchase when
the dealership ran his credit and learned that according to
TransUnion's credit check, his name was a potential match to the
Office of Foreign Assets Control list ("OFAC"). This OFAC match
alert meant that Mr. Ramirez might be subject to economic and trade
sanctions or be on a terrorist watchlist. Embarrassed, Mr. Ramirez
was unable to purchase a car that day, and his wife finalized the
transaction in her name without him. After Mr. Ramirez repeatedly
called TransUnion representatives, TransUnion mailed Mr. Ramirez
two letters acknowledging that OFAC information may incorrectly
appear on his credit report; while one letter informed him how to
seek clarification, the other
one -- in apparent violation of FCRA requirements -- did not.[2]
Although he ultimately managed to have TransUnion remove the
incorrect OFAC alert from his credit report, Mr. Ramirez had to
cancel an international family vacation while he straightened out
the misunderstanding.

Mr. Ramirez sued TransUnion for FCRA violations and moved to
represent all other consumers that TransUnion had mistakenly
labeled as potential OFAC matches.[3] Of the 8,100 consumers whom
TransUnion had so labeled, however, only about 1,800
consumers—less than a quarter of the class—had had the mistaken
information disseminated to a third party. What is more, there was
no evidence that any absent class members had been denied credit,
as Mr. Ramirez had. The district court nevertheless certified all
8,100 consumers as a class, concluding that they had all been
subject to the same FCRA violations.[4] The district court
concluded that Mr. Rodriguez's "standing is adequate for purposes
of the class," and that, accordingly, no separate showing of
standing was necessary for absent class members. The court also
briefly noted, in the alternative, that TransUnion's procedural
violations created a "risk" to absent class members that was
sufficient to satisfy Article III standing.[5]

At trial, Mr. Ramirez was the sole class member to offer evidence
about his alleged injury: he testified that he suffered
embarrassment at the dealership, continuously worried that his name
appeared on a criminal watchlist, and subsequently canceled an
international vacation with his family.[6] The jury ruled in his
favor. More remarkable, however, was the fact that they found in
favor of the entire class, and awarded statutory and punitive
damages to all 8,100 members, despite the lack of evidence that
anyone other than Mr. Ramirez had suffered injury due to the
purported statutory violation. The judgment totaled over $60
million.[7]

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied TransUnion's
motion to decertify the case, affirmed the judgment against
TransUnion, and reduced the total award from $60 million to $40
million. The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court's
conclusion that Mr. Ramirez's injuries conferred standing on absent
class members, and held that "every member of a class . . . must
satisfy the basic requirements of Article III standing at the final
stage of a money damages suit," i.e., each absent class member must
have suffered his or her own injury-in-fact.[8] But the Court was
extraordinarily lenient in its application of the prevailing
standards for "injury-in-fact," and concluded that all absent class
members could satisfy the standard because TransUnion had "created
a risk of harm" to the entire class when it prepared inaccurate
reports and "made them readily available to third parties."[9] The
Court of Appeals thus concluded that all members of the class --
even those whose reports were never actually disseminated to third
parties—had standing.

The Standing Requirements of Absent Class Members

TransUnion presents an important opportunity for the Supreme Court
to address an issue that has split the courts of appeals—the
showing that proponents of class certification must make to
establish that absent class members have Article III standing.[10]
The Court held in Robins v. Spokeo that Article III of the United
States Constitution requires that a plaintiff demonstrate an
"injury in fact" that is "concrete and particularized" and "actual
or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." A plaintiff who
"allege[s] a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete
harm" does not satisfy this requirement. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547-49 (2016). While some courts have applied
Spokeo rigorously to absent class members, others have not.

In the case before the Supreme Court, TransUnion does not dispute
that Mr. Ramirez himself satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement.
But it contends that the absent class members' complaints of
"inaccurate information lying dormant in a file" do not.[11] As
TransUnion emphasizes, these absent class members did not prove
denial of credit or even dissemination to third parties.
Nevertheless, the Ramirez jury singularly focused on the named
plaintiff's "atypically unpleasant experience" and awarded large
sums to class members who "suffered at most a technical violation
and some minor confusion."[12] And the Ninth Circuit's conclusion
that the mere "risk of harm" constituted an injury-in-fact
stretched Spokeo beyond recognition.

Statutory Violations and "No Injury" Class Actions

TransUnion's trial loss and appeal exemplifies the dangers of class
certification where the absent class members have shown no injury
and rely only on statutory penalties. Though it is black letter law
that "bare procedural violations" of a statute do not, in and of
themselves, give rise to Article III standing, many state and
federal statutes nevertheless purport to impose liability and
statutory penalties for such "bare procedural violations." And as
we have covered previously on this blog, some courts of appeals --
including the Ninth Circuit -- have conflated "bare procedural
violations" with a showing of concrete injury for absent class
members. The most egregious recent examples of this phenomenon have
occurred in the context of data privacy, but courts have also been
somewhat inconsistent on the classwide injury and damages required
in consumer protection suits.

The Supreme Court's decision to take up TransUnion's appeal
suggests that additional guidance is on the way on these issues.
Given the Court's current composition, we are hopeful that the
Court will make clear that absent class members must satisfy the
Article III standards set forth in Spokeo, and show that they
suffered more than a "bare procedural violation" to recover
damages.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling before the end of
the 2021 Term. We will monitor this case closely and provide
further updates. [GN]


TRUST FOR ADVISED: Yang Sues Over Alpha Fund's Market Value Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
LIANG YANG, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRUST FOR ADVISED PORTFOLIOS, INFINITY Q CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, LLC, CHRISTOPHER E. KASHMERICK, JOHN C. CHRYSTAL,
ALBERT J. DIULIO, S.J., HARRY E. RESIS, RUSSELL B. SIMON, LEONARD
POTTER, and JAMES VELISSARIS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01047 (E.D.N.Y. Feb.
26, 2021) is a federal securities class action suit brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased the Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund Investor Class
shares (IQDAX) or Institutional Class shares (IQDNX) between
December 21, 2018 and February 22, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
Class Period) seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On December 21, 2018, the Trust filed a post-effective amendment to
its Registration Statement pursuant to Rule 485B on Form N-1A, to
become effective December 31, 2018 (the "2019 Prospectus"). The
2019 Prospectus was signed by the Individual Defendants. On
February 22, 2021, Infinity Q filed a request with the SEC for an
order pursuant to Section 22(e)(3) of the Investment Company Act of
1940 suspending the right of redemption with respect to shares of
the Fund, effective February 19, 2021, because of Infinity Q's
inability to determine NAV.

As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Fund's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

The Plaintiff purchased the Fund's securities during the Class
Period and was economically damaged thereby.

The Defendant Trust is the registrant and issuer of the Fund. The
Trust is a Delaware statutory trust registered as an open-end,
management investment company with 18 series, including the Fund.
The Defendant Infinity is a registered investment advisor that
purports to provide hedge fund strategies to institutional and
retail investors. Infinity Q acts as investment advisor to the Fund
pursuant to an Investment Advisory Agreement. Infinity Q's
principal executive offices are located at 888 7th Avenue, Suite
3700, New York City. The Individual Defendants are Officers of the
Corporate Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

UNIFUND CCR: Court Dismisses Valentine FDCPA Suit Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CASSANDRA A. VALENTINE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIFUND CCR, INC. and
DISTRESSED ASSET PORTFOLIO III, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No.
20-cv-5024 (D.N.J.), Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The putative class action involves alleged violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et
seq.  The Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation to
Capital One and then defaulted.  After the debt was in default, DAP
III purchased the Plaintiff's account and placed the account with
Unifund for collection purposes.  The Defendants then mailed a debt
collection letter to the Plaintiff on April 23, 2019.

When the Plaintiff received the Letter, the name "Unifund CCR" and
Unifund's address was visible through the glassine window envelope.
In the Letter itself, Unifund states that it is currently
servicing the Plaintiff's account on behalf of DAP III.

After receiving the Letter, the Plaintiff filed the putative class
action.  She alleges that the Letter violates Sections 1692e, 1692f
and 1692g of the FDCPA because (1) DAP III is not licensed by the
New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance ("DOBI") pursuant to
the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act ("NJCLFA"); and (2)
Unifund's name was visible through the window envelope of the
Letter.

The Defendants then filed the instant motion to dismiss arguing
that the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  In their motion, the
Defendants do not dispute that the Plaintiff is consumer, that they
are debt collectors, or that the Defendants were attempting to
collect a debt from the Plaintiff.  Thus, the critical issue is
whether any part of the Letter or the Defendants' conduct violated
the FDCPA.

Unifund's Letter

The Defendants contend that the Complaint should be dismissed to
the extent that the Plaintiff asserts claims under Section
1692f(8).  Section 1692f prohibits debt collectors from using
"unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect
any debt."  The Defendants argue that the Letter does not violate
the plain language of Section 1692f(8) because the name Unifund
does not indicate that Unifund is in the debt collection business.

The The Plaintiff maintains that because a person may conduct an
Internet search, that person could ascertain that Unifund is a debt
collector.  Thus, she asks the Court to look beyond Unifund's name
to impose liability.

Judge Vazquez agrees with the Defendants.  As discussed, Section
1692f(8) explicitly permits a debt collector to use its business
name "if such name does not indicate that he is in the debt
collection business."  Nothing in the name "Unifund" suggests that
it is in the business of debt collecting.  Simply stated, the plain
language of the statute permits Unifund to use its name on the
envelope because the name does not indicate that Unifund is in the
debt collection business.

Given the ubiquity of the Internet, under the Plaintiff's
interpretation of Section 1692f(8), any name would indicate that
the entity is in the debt collection business after an Internet
search.  The Judge does not construe the statutory language in a
manner that fundamentally alters Section 1692f(8).  Therefore, he
concludes that the Letter does not violate Section 1692f(8) and the
Defendants' motion is granted on these grounds.

Lack of License

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants violated the FDCPA
because DAP III is not licensed under the NJCLFA.  The NJCFLA
provides that "no person will engage in business as a consumer
lender or sales finance company without first obtaining a license
or licenses under this act."  The N.J. Stat. Ann. Section 17:11C-6
provides an exception, however, stating that a depository
institution, among other entities, "may conduct consumer loan
business without obtaining a license under this act and without
being subject to this act."

The Plaintiff's debt originated with Capital One.  The Defendants
ask the Court to take judicial notice of the fact that Capital One
is a depository institution and is therefore exempt from the
NJCFLA's licensing requirements.  They next argue that because of a
recent regulatory change, DAP III is also exempt from the licensing
requirements because it was a subsequent purchaser of the debt from
an exempt entity.

Judge Vazquez opines that under the NJCFLA, an entity that
qualifies as a "consumer lender" or a "sales finance company" is
required to obtain a license from the New Jersey DOBI to buy or
collect debt.  A consumer lender is an entity that, among other
things, "directly or indirectly engages in the business of buying,
discounting, or endorsing notes, or of furnishing, or procuring
guarantee or security for compensation in amounts of $50,000 or
less."  Thus, as a purchaser of debt, DAP III meets the definition
of consumer lender.  Also, Unifund's representation that it was
attempting to collect a debt that DAP III did not have a license to
purchase may violate Section 1692e.  Thus, the Judge denied the
Defendants' motion on these grounds.

Section 1692g

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated Section 1692g.  Section 1692g(a) requires debt collectors
to include written notice of certain rights in the initial
communication or provide written notice of the rights to the debtor
within five days of the initial communication.  The Defendants
maintain that because the Plaintiff fails to allege conduct that
demonstrates any violation of Section 1692g(a), these claims must
be dismissed.  The Plaintiff does not address this argument in her
opposition brief.

The Judge agrees with the Defendants and concludes that the
Plaintiff's Complaint fails to include sufficient allegations
demonstrating that the Defendants violated Section 1692g.  These
claims, therefore, are dismissed.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Vazquez granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  The Plaintiff's Complaint
is dismissed without prejudice.  The Plaintiff will have 30 days to
file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies noted.  If
she does not file an amended pleading within that time, the claims
dismissed will be dismissed with prejudice.  An appropriate Order
accompanies the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 10, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/9rw33nps from Leagle.com.


UNITED PARCEL: Baker Sues Over Unpaid Short-Term Military Leave
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00114-SMJ (E.D. Wash., March 16, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act by failing to pay
employees when they take short-term military leave.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a full-time
package driver at its Spokane, Washington facility since
approximately June 18, 2007.

United Parcel Service, Inc. is an American multinational package
delivery and supply chain management company based in Atlanta,
Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Thomas G. Jarrard, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS G. JARRARD, PLLC
         1020 N. Washington St.
         Spokane, WA 99201
         Telephone: (425) 239-7290
         E-mail: tjarrard@att.net

                - and –

         Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq.
         CROTTY & SON LAW FIRM, PLLC
         905 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 404
         Spokane, WA 99201
         Telephone: (509) 850-7011
         E-mail: matt@crottyandson.com

                - and –

         Michael Scimone, Esq.
         OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
         685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 245-1000
         Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
         E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com

                - and –

         R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         1735 20th Street, NW
         Washington DC 20009
         Telephone: (202) 734-7046
         Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
         E-mail: jbarton@blockesq.com

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: Faces Class Action Over Tuition Fee Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
KVUE reports that a University of Texas at Austin student is suing
the university over tuition rates during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The class-action lawsuit was filed in Travis County Friday by a
student "on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated."
It states that students paid full tuition in spring 2020 for "an
in-person, hands-on education," but then the pandemic intensified
and classes were moved online.

The lawsuit aims to get students' "just compensation" for the time
in the semesters affected by COVID-19 when the university switched
to online learning. The plaintiff claims the online learning
options are inferior to the in-person education that she and other
students paid for.

"In short, as to tuition, Plaintiff and the members of the Class
have paid tuition for a first-rate education and educational
experience, with all the appurtenant benefits offered by a
firstrate university, and were provided a materially different and
insufficient product, which constitutes a breach of the contracts
entered into by Plaintiff and the Class with the University," the
lawsuit reads in part.

KVUE reached out to UT about the suit. A spokesperson said as of
Monday night, the school hasn't been served the lawsuit. [GN]


UTGR INC: Final OK of Conditionally Certified Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN RAMER and JULIE
MORALES individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals, v. UTGR, INC., d/b/a TWIN RIVER CASINO, alias, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00218-JJM-LDA (D.R.I.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. granting final certification of the conditionally
      certified class; and

   2. approving the Proposed Settlement Agreement.

On April 26, 2019, the Lead Plaintiffs, Table Games Supervisors
employed by the Defendant, brought this lawsuit against Defendant
UTGR on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
individuals employed or formerly employed by the Defendant as Floor
Supervisors and Floor Managers (or other comparable positions). The
Lead Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), and the Rhode Island Payment of Wages Act
(RIPWA), by not paying them overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek beginning from three
years prior to the filing of the Complaint until the present.

The Proposed Settlement Agreement provides for a gross total
settlement amount of $315,000.00, from which each Plaintiff will be
paid overtime pay at their respective hourly rates for time worked
each workweek in excess of 40 hours from April 26, 2016 until
November 18, 2018.

UTGR, Inc. was founded in 2004. The Company's line of business
includes operating public hotels and motels.

A copy of the joint motion to approve final collective action class
certification dated March 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Pa4Spw at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard A. Sinapi, Esq.
          Chloe A. Davis, Esq.
          SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          2374 Post Road Suite 201
          Warwick, RI 02886
          Telephone: (401) 739-9690
          Facsimile: (401) 739-9040
          E-mail: ras@sinapilaw.com
                  cad@sinapilaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Chittick, Esq.
          Ali Khorsand, Esq.
          Adler Pollock & Sheehan, P.C.
          One Citizens Plaza, 8th Floor
          Providence, RI 02903
          E-mail: Mchittick@apslaw.com
                  akhorsand@apslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael D. Chittick, Esq.
          Ali Khorsand, Esq.
          ADLER POLLOCK & SHEEHAN P.C.
          One Citizens Plaza, 8th Floor
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 274-7200
          Facsimile: (401) 351-4607
          E-mail: mchittick@apslaw.com
                  akhorsand@apslaw.com

VELODYNE LIDAR: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on March 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of investors that purchased
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (NASDAQ: VLDR) securities between November 9,
2020 and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until May 3, 2021 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On February 22, 2021, Velodyne announced that the Board had
"removed David Hall as Chairman of the Board and terminated Marta
Hall's employment as Chief Marketing Officer of the Company" after
the Audit Committee's investigation "concluded that Mr. Hall and
Ms. Hall each behaved inappropriately with regard to certain Board
and Company processes, and failed to operate with respect, honesty,
integrity, and candor in their dealings with Company officers and
directors." In addition, the Company announced that Velodyne's
Board formally censured Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall, but that they would
remain directors of Velodyne.

On this news, Velodyne's common stock fell $3.14, or approximately
15%, to close at $17.97 per share on February 22, 2021.
Additionally, Velodyne's warrants fell $1.47, or approximately 20%,
to close at $5.90 per warrant on February 22, 2021.

The complaint, filed on March 2, 2021, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1)
that certain of Velodyne's directors had failed to operate with
respect, honesty, integrity, and candor in their dealings with the
Company's officers and directors; (2) that the Company was
investigating the foregoing matters; and (3) that, as a result of
the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased Velodyne securities during the Class Period and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa
Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

              About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contacts:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]


VELODYNE LIDAR: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), on March 2 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California captioned Moradpour
v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al., (Case No. 3:21-cv-01486) on behalf
of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. ("Velodyne" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: VLDR)
securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from
this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

If you suffered a loss on your Velodyne investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/velodyne-lidar-inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On February 22, 2021, Velodyne announced that the Board had
"removed David Hall as Chairman of the Board and terminated Marta
Hall's employment as Chief Marketing Officer of the Company" after
the Audit Committee's investigation "concluded that Mr. Hall and
Ms. Hall each behaved inappropriately with regard to certain Board
and Company processes, and failed to operate with respect, honesty,
integrity, and candor in their dealings with Company officers and
directors." In addition, the Company announced that Velodyne's
Board formally censured Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall, but that they would
remain directors of Velodyne.

On this news, Velodyne's common stock fell $3.14, or approximately
15%, to close at $17.97 per share on February 22, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume. Additionally, Velodyne's warrants
fell $1.47, or approximately 20%, to close at $5.90 per warrant on
February 22, 2021.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) that certain of Velodyne's directors had failed to
operate with respect, honesty, integrity, and candor in their
dealings with the Company's officers and directors; (2) that the
Company was investigating the foregoing matters; and (3) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant
times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the Velodyne securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60
days from this notice ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


VELODYNE LIDAR: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of Velodyne Lidar, Inc. ("Velodyne" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: VLDR) to determine whether the Company engaged
in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.

A class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District
Court, Northern District of California, on behalf of investors who
purchased, or otherwise acquired, Velodyne securities between
November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021 (the "Class Period").

INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, VELODYNE SECURITIES
DURING THE CLASS PERIOD AND SUFFERED LOSSES GREATER THAN $100,000
ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE KEHOE LAW FIRM'S SECURITIES CLASS ACTION
QUESTIONNAIRE OR CONTACT KEVIN CAULEY, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT, (215) 792-6676, EXT. 802, KCAULEY@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM,
SECURITIES@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, INFO@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, TO DISCUSS THE
SECURITIES CLASS ACTION INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.

According to the class action complaint, throughout the Class
Period, the Velodyne Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. According to the complaint, the Velodyne Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that (1) certain of Velodyne's
directors had failed to operate with respect, honesty, integrity,
and candor in their dealings with the Company's officers and
directors; (2) the Company was investigating the foregoing matters;
and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Velodyne Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct.  Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors.   

This press release may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]


VENTUREBEAT INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Jaquez Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RAMON JAQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VENTUREBEAT, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01991-ER (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and
a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA and the
regulations implementing the ADA. The Plaintiff uses a popular
screen reading software called NonVisual Desktop Access when using
his computer to browse.

The Plaintiff claims that when he visited the Defendant's Website
on or around February 2021 with the intent of browsing ad
potentially making a purchase, he was denied access similar to that
of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of
features and accommodations. These multiple access barriers
effectively barred the Plaintiff from being able to enjoy the
privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public accommodation.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination as a result of its failure and refusal
to remove access barriers to its Website and failure to comply with
the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines, which could provide the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated blind and visually-impaired persons with
equal access to the Website and complete a desired transaction as
sighted individuals do.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated blind and
visually-impaired persons against respectfully requesting a
preliminary and permanent injunction requiring the Defendant to
take all the steps necessary to make its Website into full
compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA and its
implementing regulations, as well as compensatory damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and
litigation costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

Venturebeat, Inc. is a transformative tech news company that owns
and operates the Website, www.venturebeat.com. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Tel: (732) 695-3282
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com



VISION INTEGRATED: Zydek Seeks Unpaid CSRs' Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
DONNA ZYDEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VISION INTEGRATED GRAPHICS GROUP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01306 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 2021) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a salaried Client
Services Representative from 2007 until February 2021.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has classified the
Plaintiff and other CSRs as exempt from the overtime requirements
of the FLSA and the IMWL. Despite regularly working more than 40
hours per week, the Defendant allegedly did not pay them one and
one-half times their regular rat of pay for all hours they worked
over 40 each week.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court may deem
just and appropriate.

Vision Integrated Graphics Group, LLC provides technology driven,
full service, end to end marketing solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Karp Putative Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Karp v.
Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. et al.

On January 22, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against the company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors, captioned Karp v. Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. et al.,
No. 1:21-cv-00381.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who
purchased the company's common stock between June 1, 2017 and
November 9, 2020.  

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making material
misstatements or omissions concerning the Huntington's Program and
the company's IND for VY-HTT01.

The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, interest, attorneys' and expert fees and costs.  

Voyager said, "We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and believe we
have a valid defense against these claims and, therefore, intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against this lawsuit."

Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. a clinical-stage gene therapy company
focused on developing life-changing treatments for patients
suffering from severe neurological diseases. The company is based
in Cambridge Massachusetts.

VULCAN MATERIALS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bailey Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK BAILEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY and SOUTHEAST
DIVISION LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00998-MHC
(N.D. Ga., Mar. 10, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff Bailey was employed by the Defendants as driver.

Vulcan Materials Company is an American company based in
Birmingham, Alabama. It is principally engaged in the production,
distribution and sale of construction materials. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Sparks, Esq.
          AUSTIN & SPARKS, P.C.
          2974 Lookout Place, N.E., Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 869-0100
          Facsimile: (404) 869-0200
          E-mail: jsparks@austinsparks.com

               -and-

          Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
          David Pogrel, Esq.
          Afroz Baig, Esq.
          LEONARD CARDER, LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2700
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 272-0169
          Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
          E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
                  dpogrel@leonardcarder.com
                  abaig@leonardcarder.com

               -and-

          Reena I. Desai, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: rdesai@nka.com


WAL-MART INC: Seeks April 12 Deadline to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDAN GRIEGO, individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WAL-MART STORES,
INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION; WALMART, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION;
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; SAM'S WEST, INC.
AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION; AND DOES 1-100, Case No.
3:20-cv-00401-BAS-AHG (S.D. Calif.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order to continue the deadlines and hearing date
pertaining to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification by 21
days.

The parties request that the Court continue the deadline
for:

   -- Walmart to file its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
      Class Certification (currently set for March 22, 2021)
      until April 12, 2021;

   -- the Plaintiff to file his Reply Brief in support of his
      11 Motion (currently set for March 29, 2021) until April
      19, 2021; and

   -- the hearing date for Plaintiff's Motion until April 26,
      2021.

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.

A copy of the Parties motion to certify class dated March 9, 2020
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3117IzW at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
          CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C.
          236 West Portal Avenue, No. 185
          San Francisco, CA 94127
          Telephone: (619) 488-6400
          Facsimile: (805) 618-2939
          E-mail: christina@chumphreylaw.com

               - and -

          Peter M. Hart, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
          12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 525
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 478.5789
          Facsimile: (509) 561.6441
          E-mail: hartpeter@msn.com

The Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Aaron T. Winn, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2900
          San Diego, CA 92101-4681
          Telephone: (619) 744 2200
          Facsimile: (619) 744 2201
          E-mail: atwinn@duanemorris.com

               - and -

          Natalie F. Bare, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          30 S. 17 th St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 979-1962
          E-mail: nfbare@duanemorris.com

WECO INC: Looney Seeks OT Pay for Technicians Under FLSA & IMWL
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER LOONEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, and JASON NELSON, v. WECO, INC., and GARY
WAINWRIGHT, Case No. 4:21-cv-00165-KGB (E.D. Ark., March 1, 2021)
is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff against the
Defendant for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and overtime provisions of the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs as a result of the Defendant's failure to
pay proper overtime compensation under the FLSA and the IMWL.

Weco Inc. is a private company owned and operated by Gary
Wainwright. He started the company in January of 1996 in Central
Arkansas.

Mr. Looney contends that the Defendant employed him as an
hourly-paid Field Technician from September of 2019 to the present.
The Defendant also employed Mr. Nelson as an hourly-paid Roving
Technician from October of 2019 until March of 2020. The Defendant
also employed other hourly-paid Field Technicians within the three
years preceding the filing of this lawsuit. As a Field Technician,
he was primarily responsible for servicing automotive equipment.
Other Field Technicians had similar duties to him. Looney and other
Field Technicians regularly worked hours for which they were not
paid.Looney and other Field Technicians were generally paid for
hours they spent actually servicing automotive equipment, but not
for time spent driving between jobs or time spent ordering parts or
other administrative duties.

Mr. Looney estimates he worked between 60 and 70 hours per week but
was paid for less than half of that time. Even though the Defendant
had actual knowledge of the hours that he worked, hi paystubs
indicated he worked exactly 40 hours per week. When he and other
Field Technicians were not paid for the time they spent performing
certain jobs-for example, if the customer did not pay their bill,
the Defendant would often refuse to pay him or other Field
Technicians for the time they spent on that job, he adds.[BN]

The Plaintiff Looney is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          10800 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

WESTCO CHEMICALS: Pension Plan Participants Get Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Merry Russitti Diaz and
Kater Perez, 16 individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Westco Chemicals, Inc.; Ezekiel "Alan" v. Zwillinger;
and Steven Zwillinger, Case No. 2:20-cv-02070-ODW-AGR (C.D.
Calif.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright II entered an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "All participants and beneficiaries of the Westco Chemicals,
      Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan whose Plan account had
      a balance at any time on or after March 03, 2014
      through the present. Excluded from the Class are the
      Defendants and any Westco Chemicals Inc. employees having or

      exercising fiduciary responsibility for the investment of
the
      Pension Plan's assets or administration of the Pension Plan's

      terms;" and

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel of record, Michael C.
      McKay and Shoham J. Solouki as Class Counsel, and Merry
      Russitti Diaz and Kater Perez, as Class Representatives.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' claims meet each of the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a).

A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30ZU3ZN at no extra charge.[CC]

WHITE CASTLE: Hunter NYCHRL Class Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRITTANY HUNTER, DOMINIQUE ANGLIN, and ALESHA
CHAMPEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WHITE CASTLE SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 801780/2021E, was
removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
Bronx, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on March 16, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-02273 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged discrimination
pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law.

White Castle System, Inc. is an owner and operator of a chain of
restaurants, headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Adam E. Collyer, Esq.
         LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
         77 Water Street, Suite 2100
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 232-1300
         E-mail: adam.collyer@lewisbrisbois.com

WHOLESALE COINS: Blind Can't Access Website, Sanchez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTIAN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHOLESALE COINS DIRECT, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02342-PGG (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's Website,
www.wholesalecoinsdirect.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the Website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1)
lack of alternative text (alt-text), (2) empty links, (3) redundant
links, and (4) linked images missing alt-text.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

Wholesale Coins Direct, LLC is a coin dealing company in New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
         COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
         300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
         Brooklyn, NY 11201
         Telephone: (929) 575-4175
         Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
         E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

WYNDHAM VACATION: Garibay Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to D. Nevada
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT GARIBAY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP INC. and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. A-21-829354-C, was removed
from the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on March 17,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of Nevada assigned Case
No. 2:21-cv-00439-JAD-NJK to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to pay wages for rest
periods and waiting time penalties under the Nevada law.

Wyndham Vacation Ownership Inc. is a vacation ownership company
headquartered in Orlando, Florida. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Kirsten A. Milton, Esq.
         Daniel I. Aquino, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 900
         Las Vegas, NV 89101
         Telephone: (702) 921-2460
         E-mail: kirsten.milton@jacksonlewis.com
                 daniel.aquino@jacksonlewis.com

XD PLASTICS: Squitieri & Fearon LLP Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Squitieri & Fearon LLP on March 3 disclosed that it filed a class
action seeking to represent stockholders of China XD Plastics
Company Limited ("China XD") (NASDAQ : CXDC) who purchased their
stock before September 30, 2020 (the "Class Period"). This action
was filed in the Eastern District of New York and is captioned
Joshua Schmitt, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. China XD Plastics Company, Limited, et al.,
No.1:20-cv-06028-NGG-SJB. An Amended Class Action Complaint was
filed on or about February 5, 2021.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased China XD stock during the Class Period to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the China XD class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the China XD class action lawsuit.

The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate
the China XD class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share
in any potential future recovery of the China XD class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the China XD class action
lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from March
2, 2021. If you wish to discuss the China XD class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Lee Squitieri of
Squitieri & Fearon LLP, at (212) 421-6492 or via e-mail at
lee@sfclasslaw.com.

The China XD class action lawsuit charges China XD and certain of
its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. China XD is a specialty chemical company. The Company is
engaged in the research, development, manufacture and sale of
modified plastics for automotive applications in China and to a
lesser extent, in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The
Company operates in the modified plastics segment. Through its
subsidiaries, Heilongjiang Xinda Enterprise Group Company Limited
(HLJ Xinda Group) and AL Composites Materials FZE (Dubai
Composites), the Company manufactures and sells polymer composite
materials (including modified plastics), for automotive
applications.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and
misleading statements to the investing public and/or failing to
disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business,
operations and prospects. Specifically, defendants knew, or
recklessly disregarded, but failed to disclose the following
adverse facts: (a) agreeing to sell China XD without first taking
steps to ensure that Class members would obtain adequate, fair and
maximum consideration through a fair process under the
circumstances; and (b) engineering the Merger to benefit China XD's
founder Han and the Buyer Group without regard for China XD's
public stockholders. Accordingly, this action seeks, inter alia, to
enjoin the proposed closing of the Merger and rescinding the vote
approving the Merger.

Squitieri & Fearon, LLP is one of the Nation's leading law firms
representing investors in securities litigation. Squitieri & Fearon
has been recognized by courts throughout the country for its
high-quality and professional experience handling complex lawsuits,
particularly in the fields of securities, ERISA, wage and hour,
mass torts, shareholder derivative actions and antitrust claims.
Squitieri & Fearon attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.sfclasslaw.comfor more
information.

Contact:

Squitieri & Fearon, LLP
Lee Squitieri (212) 421-6492
lee@sfclasslaw.com

To view the source version of this press release, please visit
https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/75872 [GN]


ZYNGA INC: Faces Owens Suit Over Online "Social Slots" Games
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL OWENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ZYNGA INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
3:21-cv-01427-LB (N.D. Cal., Feb. 26, 2021) alleges that the Zynga
has unlawfully, unfairly, and fraudulently made hundreds of
millions of dollars from its "social slots" games.

The Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of himself and other users
seeking to end Zynga's unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent practices
in relation to its "social slots" games.

Zynga is a California-based company that develops video games that
can be played online or on apps downloaded on mobile platforms. In
the early 2010s, Zynga was under a great deal of financial stress.
As of October 2012, Zynga had lost more than three-quarters of its
market value in that year alone. As one analyst put it, "while
Zynga [had] added more and more overall users, it [was] struggling
to make money off of them."

In a move to turn the company's financials around, Zynga's
leadership decided that the company should move in the direction of
online gambling. For example, on October 9, 2012, Zynga announced a
partnership with a British company that would allow Zynga to
operate real-money online gambling through online poker, slots, and
roulette games in the UK. Zynga's then-CFO Dave Whener stated on
behalf of the company: "We view this as a first step into real
money gaming. We believe it's a good first step, but only a first
step towards what we think is a big opportunity for Zynga."

After Zynga recognized the profitability of modeling its online
games after the gambling industry, Zynga began developing and
offering "social slots" games. Zynga intentionally modeled its
"social slots" games precisely after Vegas-style slot machines.
Users make "bets" on "spins" using in-game currency. Users are
given an initial allotment of free in-game currency. But when users
exhaust their supplies of free in-game currency, they must purchase
more to keep playing -- and must do so with real money, the suit
says.

The Plaintiff contends that Zynga's "social slots" games are
unlawful slot machines under California law. Moreover, these games
utilize the same psychological tricks that casinos and physical
slot machines use to cause users to become addicted. This keeps
users playing -- and spending, and the virtual platform only
increases the opportunities to capitalize on the addictive
tendencies of users, the Plaintiff adds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Simon Franzini, Esq.
          Gregory S. Dovel, Esq.
          DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
          201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 656-7066
          Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
          E-mail: simon@dovel.com
                  greg@dovel.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***